Full text of "Luther S Works Volume 48 Letters I"

See other formats

LUTHER’S WORKS

American Edition

VOLUME 48

Published by Concordia Publishing House
and Fortress Press ( formerly Muhlenberg Press)
in 55 volumes.

General Editors are Jaroslav Pelikan (for vols. 1-30)
and Helmut T. Lehmann (for vols. 31-55)

LUTHER’S WORKS

VOLUME 48

Letters

EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY

GOTTFRIED G. KRODEL

GENERAL EDITOR

HELMUT T. LEHMANN

FORTRESS PRESS / PHILADELPHIA

4584-163

GENERAL EDITORS’
PREFACE

The first editions of Luther s collected works appeared in the six-
teenth century, and so did the first efforts to make him “speak Eng-
lish.” In America serious attempts in these directions were made for
the first time in the nineteenth century. The Saint Louis edition of
Luther was the first endeavor on American soil to publish a collected
edition of his works, and the Henkel Press in Newmarket, Virginia,
was the first to publish some of Luther s writings in an English trans-
lation. During the first decade of the twentieth century, J. N. Lenker
produced translations of Luthers sermons and commentaries in thir-
teen volumes. A few years later the first of the six volumes in the
Philadelphia (or Holman) edition of the Works of Martin Luther
appeared. But a growing recognition of the need for more of
Luthers works in English has resulted in this American edition of
Luthers works.

The edition is intended primarily for the reader whose knowl-
edge of late medieval Latin and sixteenth-century German is too
small to permit him to work with Luther in the original languages.
Those who can will continue to read Luther in his original words as
these have been assembled in the monumental Weimar edition
(D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar,
1883- ). Its texts and helps have formed a basis for this edition,

though in certain places we have felt constrained to depart from its
readings and findings. We have tried throughout to translate Luther
as he thought translating should be done. That is, we have striven
for faithfulness on the basis of the best lexicographical materials
available. But where literal accuracy and clarity have conflicted, it
is clarity that we have preferred, so that sometimes paraphrase
seemed more faithful than literal fidelity. We have proceeded in a
similar way in the matter of Bible versions, translating Luthers
translations. Where this could be done by the use of an existing
English version— King James, Douay, or Revised Standard— we have

done so. Where it could not, we have supplied our own. To indicate
this in each specific instance would have been pedantic; to adopt a
uniform procedure would have been artificial— especially in view of
Luthers own inconsistency in this regard. In each volume the
translator will be responsible primarily for matters of text and
language, while the responsibility of the editor will extend princi-
pally to the historical and theological matters reflected in the intro-
ductions and notes.

Although the edition as planned will include fifty-five volumes,
Luther’s writings are not being translated in their entirety. Nor
should they be. As he was the first to insist, much of what he wrote
and said was not that important. Thus the edition is a selection of
works that have proved their importance for the faith, life, and
history of the Christian church. The first thirty volumes contain
Luther’s expositions of various biblical books, while the remaining
volumes include what are usually called his “Reformation writings”
and other occasional pieces. The final volume of the set will be an
index volume; in addition to an index of quotations, proper names,
and topics, and a list of corrections and changes, it will contain a
glossary of many of the technical terms that recur in Luther’s works
and that cannot be defined each time they appear. Obviously
Luther cannot be forced into any neat set of rubrics. He can pro-
vide his reader with bits of autobiography or with political observa-
tions as he expounds a psalm, and he can speak tenderly about
the meaning of the faith in the midst of polemics against his
opponents. It is the hope of publishers, editors, and translators that
through this edition the message of Luther’s faith will speak more
clearly to the modem church.

j.p.

H. T. L.

CONTENTS

General Editors’ Preface v

Abbreviations xi

Introduction to Letters xiii

Introduction to Volume 48 xvii

Luthers Letter to:

1. John Braun: Erfurt, April 22, 1507 3

2. The Augustinians at Erfurt: Wittenberg, September 22, 1512 5

3. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 5, 1514 8

4. George Spenlein: Wittenberg, April 8, 1516 11

5. John Lang: Langensalza, May 29, 1516 14

6. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 24, 1516 17

7. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, September 9, 1516 18

8. Michael Dressel: Wittenberg, September 25, 1516 20

9. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, October 19, 1516 23

10. John Lang: Wittenberg, October 26, 1516 27

11. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, December 14, 1516 32

12. John Lang: Wittenberg, February 8, 1517 36

13. John Lang: Wittenberg, March 1, 1517 39

14. John Lang: Wittenberg, May 18, 1517 41

15. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, the end of August, 1517 42

16. Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz:

Wittenberg, October 31, 1517 43

17. Elector Frederick: Wittenberg, about November 6, 1517 49

18. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, January 18, 1518 52

19. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, February 22, 1518 56

20. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, May 18, 1518 60

21. John von Staupitz: Wittenberg, May 30, 1518 64

22. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 8, 1518 70

23. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 28, 1518 73

24. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 31, 1518 76

25. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, September 2, 1518 80

26. George Spalatin: Augsburg, October 14, 1518 83

27. The Papal Legate, Cardinal Cajetan:

Augsburg, October 18, 1518 87

28. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, October 31, 1518 90

29. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, November 25, 1518 93

30. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, December 9, 1518 95

31. Elector Frederick: Altenburg, January 5 or 6, 1519 96

32. Pope Leo X: Altenburg, January 5 or 6, 1519 100

33. Elector Frederick:

Wittenberg, between January 13 and 19, 1519 103

34. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, February 7, 1519 106

35. John von Staupitz: Wittenberg, February 20, 1519 108

36. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, March 13, 1519 111

37. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Wittenberg, March ,28, 1519 116

38. Elector Frederick: Wittenberg, about May 15, 1519 120

39. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, May 22, 1519 122

40. Martin Glaser: Wittenberg, May 30, 1519 124

41. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, July 20, 1519 126

42. George Spalatin:

Liebenwerda, October 9, or Wittenberg, October 10, 1519 126

43. Elector Frederick: Wittenberg, October 15, 1519 127

44. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, November 1, 1519 130

45. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, November 7, 1519 132

46. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, November 29, 1519 133

47. John Lang: Wittenberg, December 18, 1519 135

48. Thomas Fuchs: Wittenberg, December 23, 1519 139

49. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, December 31, 1519 141

50. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, January 14, 1520 143

51. John Lang: Wittenberg, January 26, 1520 148

52. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, about February 14, 1520 151

53. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, March 19, 1520 154

54. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, April 13, 1520 156

55. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, April 16, 1520 159

56. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, May 1, 1520 161

57. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, May 31, 1520 163

58. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, June 25, 1520 165

59. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, July 14, 1520 167

60. Wenceslas Link: Wittenberg, August 19, 1520 169

61. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 23, 1520 171

62. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, August 24, 1520 173

63. Emperor Charles V: Wittenberg, August 30, 1520 175

64. George Spalatin: Lichtenberg, October 12, 1520 179

65. Duke John Frederick: Wittenberg, October 30, 1520 181

66. Lazarus Spengler: Wittenberg, November 17, 1520 184

67. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, December 10, 1520 186

68. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, December 29, 1520 188

69. John von Staupitz: Wittenberg, January 14, 1521 191

70. Elector Frederick: Wittenberg, January 25, 1521 194

71. George Spalatin: Frankfurt/Main, April 14, 1521 197

72. John Cuspinian: Worms, April 17, 1521 199

73. Lucas Cranach: Frankfurt/Main, April 28, 1521 200

74. Emperor Charles V: Friedberg, April 28, 1521 203

75. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, about May 8, 1521 210

76. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, about May 8, 1521 213

77. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, May 12, 1521 215

78. Nicholas von Amsdorf: Wartburg, May 12, 1521 218

79. John Agricola: Wartburg, May 12, 1521 220

80. George Spalatin: Wartburg, May 14, 1521 222

81. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, May 26, 1521 228

82. Francis von Sickingen: Wartburg, June 1, 1521 244

83. The People of Wittenberg: Wartburg, June, 1521 248

84. George Spalatin: Wartburg, June 10, 1521 253

85. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, July 13, 1521 256

86. Nicholas von Amsdorf: Wartburg, July 15?, 1521 264

87. George Spalatin: Wartburg, July 15, 1521 268

88. George Spalatin: Wartburg, soon after July 15, 1521 270

89. George Spalatin: Wartburg, soon after July 15, 1521 272

90. George Spalatin: Wartburg, July 31, 1521 274

91. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, August 1, 1521 277

92. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, August 3, 1521 283

93. George Spalatin: Wartburg, August 6, 1521 289

94. George Spalatin: Wartburg, August 15, 1521 291

95. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, September 9, 1521 296

96. George Spalatin: Wartburg, September 9, 1521 305

97. Nicholas von Amsdorf: Wartburg, September 9, 1521 310

98. George Spalatin: Wartburg, September 17, 1521 312

99. George Spalatin: Wartburg, October 7, 1521 315

100. Nicholas Gerbel: Wartburg, November 1, 1521 317

101. George Spalatin: Wartburg, November 1, 1521 323

102. The Augustimans in Wittenberg: Wartburg, November, 1521 324

103. George Spalatin: Wartburg, November 11, 1521 325

104. Hans Luther: Wartburg, November 21, 1521 329

105. George Spalatin: Wartburg, November 22, 1521 337

106. Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz:

Wartburg, December 1, 1521 339

107. George Spalatin: Wittenberg, about December 5, 1521 350

108. George Spalatin: Wartburg, about December 12, 1521 353

109. John Lang: Wartburg, December 18, 1521 356

110. Wenceslas Link: Wartburg, December 18, 1521 357

111. Nicholas von Amsdorf: Wartburg, January 13, 1522 360

112. Philip Melanchthon: Wartburg, January 13, 1522 364

113. Wolfgang Fabricius Capito: Wartburg, January 17, 1522 372

114. George Spalatin: Wartburg, January 17, 1522 380

115. George Spalatin: Wartburg, January 22?, 1522 382

116. Elector Frederick: Wartburg, about February 22, 1522 386

117. Elector Frederick: Boma, March 5, 1522 388

118. Elector Frederick: Wittenberg: March 7 or 8, 1522 393

119. Nicholas Hausmann: Wittenberg: March 17, 1522 399

Indexes 403

ABBREVIATIONS

ANF — The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander

Roberts and James Donaldson
(Buffalo and New York, 1885-1896, American
reprint of the Edinburgh edition).

ARG — Archiv fiir Reformationsgeschichte.

CIC — Corpus Iuris Canonici, edited by E. Friedberg

(Graz, 1955).

C.R. — Corpus Reformatorum, edited by C. G. Bret-

schneider and H. E. Bindseil
(Halle/Saale, 1834-1860).

DRTA. JR — Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,
edited by Historische Kommission bei der
Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
(Gotha, 1893- ).

EA Var. arg. — D. Martin Luthers Sammtliche Werke. Erlanger
Ausgabe: Opera latina varii argumenti ad
reformationis historiam imprimis pertinentia
(Frankfurt/Erlangen, 1865-1873).

LCC — Library of Christian Classics . John T. McNeill and

Henry P. van Dusen, General Editors
(Philadelphia, 1953- ).

LW —American Edition of Luther's Works

(Philadelphia and St. Louis, 1955- ).

MPL — Patrologia , Series Latina, 221 vols., edited by J. P.

Migne

(Paris, 1884-1904).

O.C.D. —The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by M.
Cary et al.

(2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1950).
O.D.C.C. — The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
edited by F. L. Cross
(2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1958).

PE —Works of Martin Luther. Philadelphia Edition

(Philadelphia, 1915-1943).

PNF — The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Chris-

tian Church. First Series: edited by Philip
Schaff. Second Series: edited by Philip Schaff
and H. Wace
(New York, 1886-1900).

S-J —Luther's Correspondence, 2 vols., edited by Pre-

served Smith and Charles M. Jacobs
(Philadelphia, 1913-1918).

St. L. —D. Martin Luthers sdmmtliche Schriften, edited by

Johann Georg Walch. Edited and published in
modem German, 23 vols. in 25
(2nd ed., St. Louis, 1880-1910).

WA — D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe

(Weimar, 1883- ).

WA, Br —D. Martin Luthers Werke. Briefwechsel
(Weimar, 1930- ).

WA, DB — D. Martin Luthers Werke. Deutsche Bibel
(Weimar, 1906-1961).

WA, TR — D. Martin Luthers Werke. Tischreden
(Weimar, 1912-1921).

XII

INTRODUCTION TO
Letters

Approximately 2,580 of Luthers letters are still in existence. It
is certain that Luther himself wrote these. Naturally not all the
letters of the Reformer have been preserved, and the number of
letters written to him that are accessible is even smaller.

The text critical problems of Luthers letters are perhaps more
complex and b affli ng than those of his other writings. Even today
many problems are unsolved, and perhaps they never will be
solved. Many of the letters and notes are available only as
manuscript copies or in prints of the sixteenth century, while the
original seems to be lost. Which of the copies is authentic? How
are the various copies related to each other? If a message from
Luther s hand is extant, yet in various drafts, which is the first and
which the final draft? These are just a few of the questions that
must be asked. It would have exceeded the working capacity of
one man, even with the help of a research team, to clarify the text
tradition for all of Luther’s letters. As a result, Otto Clemen, the
editor of Luthers correspondence in the Weimar Edition, 1 was
forced to publish a text which in some places might be considered
unsatisfactory as far as text criticism is concerned. In several
instances the Enders edition of Luther’s letters 2 is more adequate;
nevertheless it, too, has its shortcomings. 3 The outstanding features
of the Weimar Edition are the text critical apparatus (where the
manuscript readings and the text of the printed editions are made
available for comparison with the text which is offered) and the
commentary. With the exception of Percy S. Allen, the editor of
the Erasmus correspondence, there has never been a man— and

* w n, iu.

2£. L. Enders, G. Kawerau (eds.). Dr. Martin Luthers Brief wechsd (19
vols.; Frankfurt, Stuttgart, 1884-1932); hereinafter cited as Enders, Brief-
wechsel.

3 For a detailed discussion of the problems involved, see WA, Br 1, xvi f., and
the planned volume ll n or 12.

perhaps never will be— with such profound knowledge of the peo-
ple and events of the sixteenth century as was Otto Clemen, who
once taught at the Gymnasium in Zwickau and was librarian of
the famous Ratsschulbibliothek there . 4

Several selections of Luther s letters are available in English; the
most important of these is the one by Preserved Smith . 5 The merit
of this work (incomplete and out-of-print) consists in the material
Smith included with Luthers correspondence, such as letters of
Humanists, of members of the Roman hierarchy, and of politically
important figures, as well as contemporary reports on events with
which Luther s name was connected. On the other hand, and this
is one of the shortcomings of the Smith edition, Luthers letters
seem to be lost among these additional documents, which fre-
quently take more space than Luthers own writings. In addition
many of the documents are not translated but only very freely
summarized, so that the reader is hardly able to recognize the
underlying original.

The text of Luthers letters is often unclear, more than is
the case with his other writings. This is due either to corruption
of the text tradition or to the fact that the letters were written
in a great hurry and were not polished. As a result the translator
of the present edition often had to be concerned more with a
reproduction of Luther's thought than with literal fidelity. When
essential this reproduction appears in brackets. At the same time
the translator attempted to preserve Luthers style, which is of
course more free and vivid in a letter than in a formal treatise. The
reader will especially notice the effusive language Luther used in
addressing secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries. Compared with
the flowery language of the Humanists, however, Luther s wording
was restrained; he was merely adhering to the polite forms of
speech used in the sixteenth century. Luther s self-deprecation may

4 This library is a treasury of sixteenth century material; Clemen dedicated his
life to making it available to scholars.

*S-J; Vol. 1: 1507-1521; Vol. 2: 1521-1530. Smith published an earlier
volume: The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (Boston, 1911). There also
is a collection by M. A. Currie, The Letters of Martin Luther (London, 1908);
this is a selection of five hundred very freely and often inaccurately rendered
letters; since the text offers almost no commentary, this edition is of little
value to the study of Luther.

also seem strange to the present-day reader. Such self-abasement
was the custom of the day; yet in Luther s case it was more than
a question of form. As a monk he was trained to minimize himself
and to exalt his fellow-men.

An insight into Luthers personality can be gained only when
one preserves the diversity of the material with which he dealt in
any one letter and the way in which he did it. In relation to the
specific circumstances under which it was written, a letter was a
unity; it is therefore unfair to dissect it and offer only the “interest-
ing” parts, as was done by Preserved Smith. Consequently in the
present edition each letter is completely translated and set forth,
including the address and signature.

Amy selection made from a man’s literary work can be ques-
tioned; this is especially true so far as a choice of his letters is
concerned. The editor went through Luther’s entire correspondence
twice before deciding which letters should be translated. The
selected letters should clearly show the environment in which the
Reformer lived and the times he shaped. They are intended to be a
companion to the study of the Reformation and they should enable
the reader to see Luther in the context of the great political and
intellectual controversies of the first part of the sixteenth century.

As they follow the major steps in Luthers life and career, the
letters also portray Luther as a man. They present him as he was,
without idealizing him. In reading Luthers letters one should
keep in mind that except for official statements they were private
documents reflecting the mans mood in a more direct way than
any of his other literary works. The letters originated in the com-
plex situation in which Luther found himself; yet they reveal in-
sights which speak to men of today.

The letters in the American Edition of Luther s works are based
on the text of the Weimar Edition. The dates are retained as they
were established through the careful research of the editor of WA,
Br. Each document is preceded by a short introduction, the neces-
sary information regarding addressee and background of the letter,
and the reference to the original in the Weimar Edition. Although
the text critical apparatus of the WA, Br edition was consulted for
the translation, text critical notes are added only when the editor
considered them sufficiently important. This rather arbitrary pro-

cedure (which is, however, in keeping with the character of the
LW edition) was especially necessary for the letters, in view of the
text critical problems involved. It is perhaps superfluous to say
that in compiling the explanatory notes the editor drew on the
material presented by the WA, Br edition. Yet in many cases
greater detail was necessary, especially for a clarification of the
legal and political background of some of the letters. References to
patristic material are given by book, chapter, and paragraph; this
should enable the reader to locate them in any edition or transla-
tion he may have available.

G. G. K.

XVI

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 48

Volume 48 in Luther’s Works 1 presents 119 letters written by
Luther between 1507 and March, 1522, the time of his return from
the Wartburg. They illustrate the period in Luther’s life which
is generally considered the most exciting: his monastic and ac-
ademic careers, his attack on the Roman church, his trial for heresy,
the Diet of Worms, and his exile at the Wartburg. The man who
was taken to the Wartburg and the man who was called back
from there faced totally different problems. “Externally speaking,
Luther had reached the turning point of his career. The leader
of the opposition was called to be the head of die government,
albeit in a very restricted area. The demolisher was summoned
to build. The change of course was not absolute because he had
been constructive all along, and to the end he never ceased to
flay the papacy. Nevertheless the change was vast between the
role of railing against ‘the execrable bull of Antichrist’ and that
of providing a new pattern of church, state, and society, a new
constitution for the church, a new liturgy, and a new Scripture in
the vernacular.” 2 It is generally assumed that the Wartburg exile
brought the first major period in Luther’s life to a close. 8 It seemed
only natural therefore to end the first volume of Luther’s letters
with this date. The letters eloquently give the highlights in the
life of Luther, the man who irrevocably put the stamp of his name
on the first quarter of the sixteenth century, in spite of his desire
to live in seclusion and only “watch the splendid performance of
the gifted people” of his age. 4

It is impossible to give a complete bibliography of the publica-
tions which deal with Luther’s life and work in general or with
the period of his life which is covered by the letters of Volume 48
in particular. An investigation of any of the matters touched upon

1 For the organization of the text, see pp. xv f.

2 R. Bainton, Here I Stand. A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville, 1950), p. 215;
hereinafter cited as Bainton.

3 H. Bomkamm called the Wartburg period “the great breathing spell.”
(“Probleme der Lutherbiographie,” V. Vajta [ed.], Lutherforschung Heute
[Berlin, 1958], p. 19.) See also J. W. Doberstein, T. G. Tappert (trans.),
H. Boehmer’s Road to Reformation (Philadelphia, 1946).

4 See p. 69.

xvn

in this volume has to begin with a careful study of the standard
bibliographical work of Reformation history compiled by Karl
Schottenloher . 5 More detailed information concerning persons and
events may be found in general reference works . 6

A history of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, which
relates Luther to the political and cultural situation in Europe, is
provided by Harold J. Grimm . 7 B. J. Kidd has collected the most
important primary sources concerning the Continental Reformation
and added a short commentary to them . 8 Political events related
to the church in Ducal Saxony at the time of Duke George are
documented by the Duke’s official papers . 9 The history of the
University of Wittenberg in the first half of the sixteenth century
is reflected in the official papers of the University . 10

5 Bibliographic zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung,
1517-1585 (6 vols.; Leipzig, 1933-1940). For bibliographies of the literature
since 1940, see B. Gebhardt, Handbuch der Deutschen Geschichte, Vol. II:
Von der Reformation bis zum Ende des Absolutismus (8th ed.; Stuttgart,
1955), and the bibliographical reviews offered periodically in Church History
(1956, 1961), in Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, and in the reports of the
international congresses for Luther research: Lutherforschung Heute (Berlin,
1958); Luther and Melanchthon (Philadelphia, 1961). A general introduction
to the modem historiography concerning Luther and the Reformation is
offered by H. J. Grimm, “Luther Research Since 1920,” Journal of Modem
History, XXXII (1960); W. Pauck, “The Historiography of the German Ref-
ormation during the Past Twenty Years,” Church History, IX (1940); W. P.
Fuchs, “Forschungen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte des Reformations-
zeitalters,” Die Welt als Geschichte (1956).

® Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (45 vols., 11 supplementary vols.; Leipzig,
1875-1912); Neue Deutsche Biographie (Miinchen, 1953- ); New Schaff-

Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (13 vols.; New York, 1908-
1912) and two supplementary volumes: Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge (2 vols.; Grand Rapids, 1955); Die Religion in
Geschichte und Gegenwart (2nd ed., 6 vols.; Tubingen, 1927-1932; 3rd ed.,
Tubingen, 1957- ); Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche (10 vols.; Regens-
burg, 1930-1938; 2nd ed.; Freiburg, 1957- ).

7 The Reformation Era (New York, 1954); hereinafter cited as Grimm.

8 Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation (Oxford University
Press, 1901); hereinafter cited as Kidd.

® F. Gess (ed.), Akten und Brief e zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von
Sachsen (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1905); hereinafter cited as Akten und Brief e.

10 W. Friedensburg (ed.), Urkundenbuch der Universitat Wittenberg
(Geschichtsquellen der Provinz Sachsen, N.R. 3-5, 2 vols.; Magdeburg, 1926-
1927); hereinafter cited as Urkundenbuch.

C. E, Forstemann (ed.), Liber Decanorum Facultatis Theologicae
Academiae Vitebergensis (Leipzig, 1838); Forstemann (ed.). Album
Academiae Vitebergensis (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1841).

A general history is provided by W. Friedensburg, Geschichte der
Universitat Wittenberg (Halle, 1917); hereinafter cited as Friedensburg,
G.U.W.

xvm

Roland Bainton 11 and Ernest G. Schwiebert 12 have made the
life and work of Luther the topic of profound, well-illustrated
studies which complement each other. While Baintons work is
more concerned with the interpretation of Luther, Schwiebert,
following the tradition of the great representatives of the historical
school of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, focuses on
the actual events. His work is an inexhaustible source of informa-
tion. Luthers life up to the Wartburg period is the subject of
special studies by Heinrich Boehmer 13 and Robert H. Fife . 14
Preserved Smith 15 has made a selection from Luthers letters and
from documents which deal with events with which the Reformer
was directly or indirectly related. Theodore G. Tappert 16 has
selected material concerning spiritual counseling from Luthers
writings. In this work Luther speaks to the reader through letters
and table talks on such topics as “cheer for the anxious and
despondent,” “instructions to the perplexed and doubting,” “en-
couragement to the persecuted and imprisoned,” “counsel in ques-
tions of marriage and sex,” and so on.

A valuable tool in working with Luthers correspondence is
Georg Buchwald’s Luther Kalendarium . 17 Though this work is
rather difficult to use and certainly has many shortcomings, it is
still the only chronological list of letters written by Luther. It
also gives places he stayed at a particular time and activities he
was engaged in at a particular time and place. Many of the
assumptions concerning the place where Luther wrote a particular
letter are based on this work.

A selection from the works 18 of Luthers co-worker Melanchthon

11 See note 2.

12 Luther and His Times ( St. Louis, 1950 ) ; hereinafter cited as Schwiebert

13 See note 3.

14 The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York, 1957); hereinafter cited as Fife,
is S-J.

16 Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel. LCC 18; hereinafter cited as Luther:
Letters.

17 G. Buchwald, Luther Kalendarium ( Schriften des Vereins fur Reformations -
geschichte 147; Leipzig, 1929).

18 R. Stupperich (ed.), Melanchthon s Werke (Giitersloh, 1951- ); here-

inafter cited as Melanchthon , Studienausgabe.

A selection of Melanchthon’s writings is available in English: E. E.
Flack, L. Satre (eds.), C. L. Hill (trans.), Melanchthon: Selected Writings
(Minneapolis, 1962); hereinafter cited as Melanchthon: S.W.

xcc

now available in a modem edition is used instead of the text
in the Corpus Reformatorum wherever possible.

Material on the theological background against which Luther
has to be seen can be found in Henry Bettenson’s Documents 19
and Heinrich Denzingers Enchiridion . 20 Berthold Altaners
Patrology 21 and Johannes Quastens Patrology 22 will introduce the
reader to the patristic material he will encounter in this volume.
The only history of the Augustinian Eremites in Germany in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is provided by Theodor Kolde ; 23
it is outdated, however, in many respects.

Humanism, no less than Luther, shaped the sixteenth century.
The works of the most important Humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam,
unfortunately are not yet available in a modem edition but only
in an edition of the early eighteenth century . 24 His correspondence,
however, is available in a masterpiece of modem editorial method . 25
Percy S. Allen s edition of the Erasmus correspondence, in addition
to providing the text, is a wellspring of information about people
and events of the first half of the sixteenth century.

The works of Humanists representing nationalistic opposition
to Rome, especially those of Ulrich von Hutten , 26 document
the Zeitgeist, the sentiment of the period which was ready for the
great religious, social, and political revolution brought about by
the Reformation.

G. G. K.

19 Documents of the Christian Church (6th ed.; Oxford University Press,
1956); hereinafter cited as Bettenson.

20 Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et
Morum (31st ed.; Freiburg/Breisgau, 1957); R. J. Deferrari (trans.), Sources
of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis, 1958); hereinafter cited as Denzinger.
21 Patrologie (5th ed.; Freiburg/Breisgau, 1958); H. C. Graef (trans.)
Patrology ( Freiburg/Breisgau, 1960 ) ; hereinafter cited as Patrology.

22 Patrology ( Utrecht- Antwerp, Westminster, Md., 1950- ).

28 Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation und Johann von S taupitz (Gotha,
1879); hereinafter cited as Kolde.

24 J. Clericus (ed.), Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia (10 vols.;
Leyden, 1703-1706); hereinafter cited as Clericus.

A modem edition of some selected works has been prepared by H.
Holbom in his Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus . Ausgewahlte Werke
(Miinchen, 1933).

25 P. S. Allen et ad. (eds.), Opus Epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami
(12 vols.; New York, Oxford University Press, 1906-1958); hereinafter cited
as Allen (vol., number of letter).

26 E. Booking (ed.), Ulrich von Hutten, Opera Omnia (5 vols.; Leipzig:
1859-1862; 2 supplementary vols.); hereinafter cited as Booking.

Note on Scriptural References
In quoting Scripture, Luther cites only chapter, not verse, since
chapters were not yet customarily divided into verses at that time.
In the present translation Luthers own citations have been re-
tained— except in the case of the Psalms— and supplemented or
corrected as need be in brackets to conform to the versification in
the RSV.

Citations from the Psalms present a special problem. Luther
had not yet translated the Old Testament when he wrote the
letters in the present volume; his citations are from the Vulgate.
In the Vulgate— and in the modem Roman Catholic English ver-
sions based upon it— the Psalms are numbered differently than in
the AV and RSV, though in both cases the total number of Psalms
is 150. The difference parallels that between the Septuagint and
the Hebrew in that for the greater part of the Psalter the numera-
tion of the former is one behind that of the latter; only for Psalms
1-8 and 148-150 is the numeration identical. Further confusion
arises from the fact that in modem Latin and German Bibles—
following Hebrew precedent— the title or introductory statement
attached to many of the Psalms is frequently given a verse num-
ber, a practice not followed in the RSV. In the present volume
Luther’s Psalm citations, if they were correct in terms of the
Vulgate of his time, have been altered directly in the process of
translation to conform to the chapter numbers of the RSV. The
reference to the Vulgate found occasionally in parentheses suggests
only that the quoted text is closer to the Vulgate translation than
to the RSV.

LUTHER’S WORKS

VOLUME 48

TO JOHN BRAUN, APRIL 22, 1507

To John Braun
Erfurt, April 22, 1507

Luther entered the monastery of the Augustinian Eremites in
Erfurt on July 17, 1505. After his novitiate year he was allowed
to take the vows and was designated for the priesthood . In this
letter Luther invites an elderly friend to come to the celebration
of his first mass . This is the oldest preserved letter of Luther.

See Bainton , pp. 39 ff.; Fife , pp. 97 ff.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 1, 10-11.

To the pious and venerable John Braun, a priest of Christ
and Mary, a vicar at Eisenach, 1 my dearest friend in Christ

Greetings in Christ Jesus, our Lord. I would fear, kindest sir, to
disturb your love with my burdensome letters and wishes, if I did
not consider (on the basis of your gracious heart which is so
generously inclined toward me) the sincere friendship I have ex-
perienced in so many ways and favors. Therefore I do not hesitate
to write this little letter to you, trusting that in the closeness of our
mutual friendship you will listen, and that it might find you easily
approachable.

God, who is glorious and holy in all his works, has deigned to
exalt me magnificently— a miserable and totally unworthy sinner—
by calling me into his supreme ministry, solely on the basis of his
bounteous mercy. Therefore I have to fulfil completely the office
entrusted to me so that I may be acceptable ( as much as dust can
be acceptable to God) to such great splendor of divine goodness.

According to the resolution of my fathers, it is determined
that I should begin this [holy office] with the help of Gods grace
on the fourth Sunday following Easter, which we call Cantate. 2
For this day was set aside to celebrate my first mass before God,

1 John Braun, O.F.M., was vicar of the St. Mar/ s Chapter in Eisenach.
Luther met him (perhaps in the home of one of die Schalbes, see note 6)
when he attended school in Eisenach (1498-1501).

2 May 2, 1507.

LETTERS

since it is convenient to my father. 8 To this then, kind friend, I
invite you humbly, perhaps even boldly. I do this certainly not
because I consider myself in a position, due to favors I may have
granted you (there are none), to request you to inconvenience
yourself with the trouble of such a journey to visit me, a poor and
humble man; but I do so because I experienced your good will
and your obvious kindness toward me when I visited you the other
day, 4 and in great abundance on many other occasions.

Therefore, dearest Father, Sir, and Friar (the first title is due
to your age and office, the second due to your merits, the third
due to your Order), please honor me with your presence if time
and your clerical or domestic duties in any way permit, and sup-
port me with your valuable presence and prayers, that my sacrifice
may be acceptable to God. You may bring along my kinsman
Conrad (who was once sacristan at St. Nicholas Church), 6 and
anyone you may wish as a traveling companion, so long as he has
freed himself from domestic obligations and will enjoy coming.

Finally I urge you to come right into our monastery to stay
with us this little while ( I am not afraid that you will settle down
here!) and not to look elsewhere for quarters. You will have to
become a cellarius, that is, an inhabitant of a monastic cell.

Farewell in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Written at our cloister in Erfurt on April 22, the year of [our]
Lord 1507

Friar Martin Luther
from Mansfeld

I do not dare to importune or burden those excellent people
of the Schalbe Foundation, who certainly have done so much for
me. 6 I am sure that it would not befit their social position and

8 Luther was mainly interested in the presence of his father, who had
violently opposed his son's entrance into the monastery (see pp. 301, 331 f.).
His father did, however, honor him with his presence and the monastery with
a nice sum of money; see WA, TR 2, No. 1558.

4 Precise information concerning this visit is not available.

5 Conrad Hutter was a relative of Luther on his mother's side; see WA, Br
1, 12, n. 10.

•Members of the Schalbe family were patrons of a small Franciscan monas-
tery located at the foot of the Wartburg. Luther had received free board
from one of the Schalbes.

TO THE AUGUSTINIANS AT ERFURT, SEPTEMBER 22, 1512

prestige to be invited to such an unimportant and humble affair, or
to be bothered by the wishes of a monk who is now dead to the
world. In addition I am uncertain and somewhat dubious whether
an invitation would please or annoy them. Therefore I have de-
cided to be silent; but if there should be an opportunity, I wish
you would express my gratitude to them. Farewell.

To the Augustinians at Erfurt
Wittenberg, September 22, 1512

After his ordination to the priesthood , Luthers superiors assigned
him to the study of theology , at first in the studium generate
(see p. 28, n. 3) of the Erfurt monastery. In the winter semester of
1508/09 he was transferred to the monastery in Wittenberg. While
pursuing his studies in the Theological Faculty of the University
of Wittenberg, which had just been founded, he taught some
philosophy courses on the Faculty of Liberal Arts. On March 9,
1509, Luther was graduated as Bachelor in Biblical Studies and
was then recalled to the monastery in Erfurt. In the fall of 1509
he was graduated from the University of Erfurt as Master of the
Sentences; following that he had to lecture on the Sentences of
Peter Lombard, the standard theological work of that period (see
O.D.C.C., pp. 1054 f.). At the same time he continued his studies,
concentrating especially on the works of St. Augustine. Trans -
ferred permanently to Wittenberg in 1511 by von Staupitz, the
vicar general of the Order, Luther was directed to complete the
steps leading to the Doctorate in Biblical Theology. This degree
would enable him eventually to occupy the Chair of Biblical
Theology, then held by von Staupitz but unavoidably neglected
by him due to the pressure of his administrative duties in the Order.

This letter is Luthers invitation to his old friends in the
monastery in Erfurt to come to his graduation as Doctor of
Theology. The graduation exercises and festivities were scheduled
for October 18 and 19, 1512.

LETTERS

See Fife, pp. 104 ff .; Schwiebert, pp. 199 ff. On Luther as
a professor, see T . G. Tappert, * Luther in His Academic Role,**
The Mature Luther (“ Martin Luther Lectures,** Vol. Ill [Decorah,
Iowa, 1959]), pp. 3 ff.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 18.

To the reverend, venerable, and godly fathers,
to the Prior , 1 the Master , 2 and the seniors of
the monastery of the Order of the Eremites of
Bishop St. Augustine in Erfurt , 3
my fathers, honored in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings in the Lord

Reverend, venerable, and beloved fathers: Pay attention, St. Lukes
Day 4 is approaching! On that day, in obedience to the fathers
and the Reverend Father Vicar , 5 I shall be solemnly graduated as
a Doctor of Theology. I assume that you, my fathers, are already
very well aware of this due to a letter from our Reverend Father

1 It is not certain who was prior of the Erfurt monastery in 1512; it may have
been Andrew Lohr, who we know was prior in 1514.

2 John Nathin, one of Luther's former teachers in the studium generate (see
p. 28, n. 3). He was a disciple of the Occamist Gabriel Biel (see O.D.C.C.,
pp. 172, 1462 f.) and apparently had been graduated as Doctor of Theology
from the University in Erfurt in 1493.

8 The Eremites of St. Augustine, a mendicant order similar to the Fran-
ciscans and Dominicans, was founded in 1255 by the union of various groups
of Italian hermits. According to tradition their Rule originated with St.
Augustine, bishop of Hippo (see O.D.C.C., pp. 106 ff.). At the beginning
of the fifteenth century a number of Augustinian monasteries in Holland
and Germany submitted to a strict reform in an attempt to restore the
original purity of the Order. In a bitter struggle against other monasteries,
these "Rule-observing" Augustinians formed the "Congregation of Reformed
Augustinians” which was independent of the four provinces into which the
German Augustinians were organized. This congregation was headed by a
vicar general and divided into several districts. It was sometimes referred
to as the "German” or "Saxon” congregation, although by no means all
German Augustinians had joined it. Both the monastery in Erfurt (which
Luther had entered in 1505) and that in Wittenberg belonged to the Re-
formed Augustinians. One of their disting uishin g marks was the attention
they paid to the study of the church fathers and the Scriptures.

4 October 18, 1512.

5 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1. Luther always stressed that he acquired
his degree and thus the obligation to teach the gospel only out of obedience
to his superiors and not out of his own desire. See pp. 146, 232, 274, 314 f.

TO THE AUGUSHNIANS AT ERFURT, SEPTEMBER 22, 1512

Prior 6 here at Wittenberg. I omit all self-accusations, and do not
mention my unworthiness, lest I seem to seek honor and praise by
means of humility. God knows, and my conscience also knows,
to what extent I am worthy of and grateful for such a bestowal
of glory and honor.

Therefore I beseech you for the sake of Christ’s mercy to
commend me to God in your common prayers— you know, on die
basis of the law of love, you are my debtors in this— so that Gods
will, gracious and blessed, may be with me. Further I beg you
to honor me with your presence, if it can be done with any ease,
and to partake in this my solemn “parade” (I am honest) for the
sake of decorum and the honor of our Order, and especially of
our district . 7 I would not presume, my fathers, to bother you with
the inconveniences and expenses involved in such a journey, had
the Most Reverend Father Vicar 8 not ordered it. In addition it
would seem shameful, disgraceful, and even scandalous that I
should ascend to such dignity without you in Erfurt knowing of
it, or being invited to it. It would especially please me if die
venerable Father Lector, George Leiffer , 9 would want to and
would be able to come with you; however if this is not possible,
the Lord’s will be done. I pray and trust, as is fitting, that in this
matter your fatherly love may show itself. I shall remember with
gratitude your acceptance of my invitation.

Farewell in the Lord to all and each of you, as well as to
our friars, to whom I and all of us commend ourselves in prayer.

Written at Wittenberg , September 22, 1512

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

6 Wenceslas Link; see pp. 169 f.

7 See note 3.

8 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

9 It was customary that during mealtimes one friar read aloud from Scrip-
ture or from the writings of the church fathers. George Leiffer was lector,
or reader, in the Erfurt monastery. The term “ lecto r” could also have meant
a friar who was teaching in the studium generate (see p. 28, n. 3), or any
person lecturing in an academic institution.

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, 1 August 5, 1514

George Spalatin (1484-1545) studied liberal arts, some theology,
and law at Erfurt and Wittenberg, and in 1503 received his
Masters degree from the University of Wittenberg. After being
ordained to the priesthood in 1508, he was called in 1509 to the
Electoral Saxon court to educate Prince John Frederick (see pp.
181 f.). In 1511 he was appointed a canon at Altenburg, but re-
mained at court in the personal service of Elector Frederick (see
pp. 49 f.). He was made librarian (a position which made him
responsible for the development of the library at the University
of Wittenberg; see Schwiebert, pp. 245 f.), court chaplain, secre-
tary, and private counselor; ultimately he became one of the most
influential persons surrounding the Elector. He teas the liaison
man between the University of Wittenberg and the Electoral
court. The date of the beginning of his friendship with Luther
cannot be definitely established; however at the time this letter
was written Spalatin and Luther were already well acquainted .
The friendship between the two men, which withstood mutual
criticism (see pp. 326 f., 382 ff.), lasted until Spalatin s death.
Through Luthers influence Spalatin became deeply involved in
biblical studies and developed into a wholehearted, though careful,
supporter of the Reformation. When Elector Frederick died in
1525, Spalatin left the court and took over his own congregation
in Altenburg. Yet he did not disappear from public affairs; his
name was connected with almost every great political event of
the twenties and thirties of the sixteenth century, as well as with
the great developments in the territorial churches of the Refor-
mation. His diplomatic shrewdness, his theological sensitivity, and
his earnest struggle for truth made him one of the truly great,
though little known, men of the Reformation . Virtually none of
his letters is extant, although he carefully preserved letters ad -

1 The sources of this and letters No. 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 29,
30, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62 do
not give the place from where Luther wrote; however, one can infer from
their contents that it was Wittenberg.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 5, 1514

dressed to him . Many of his writings and translations are still
available, though difficult to obtain . See O.D.C.C., p. 1278 .

In September, 1513, John Reuchlin, the most outstanding
Humanist and Hebrew scholar of the early sixteenth century (see
O.D.C.C., p. 1159), was put on trial by the Inquisition for his
interest in Jewish literature . This was the result of a prolonged
and bitter literary battle. In the spring of 1514 Ortwin Gratius,
one of Reuchlins enemies, published a book in which he
slandered the Hebrew scholar . Highly indignant at this attack,
Spalatin called it to Luthers attention . In this letter Luther ex-
presses his opinion concerning this book and the entire controversy .

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 28-29; this is the oldest preserved
letter in Luthers own handwriting.

To the most learned and highly esteemed priest in Christ,
George Spalatin, my dearest friend

Greetings. Up to this point, most learned Spalatin, I considered
Ortwin, 2 that little “poet” in Cologne, to be an ass. But as you see
he has [now] become a dog, even more, a ravenous wolf in
sheep’s clothing, 3 if not even a crocodile, as you sense so keenly.
I assume that finally he himself “caught on” to his asininity (if
I may use Greek in Latin), 4 since our John Reuchlin pushed his
nose in it. 5 But since Ortwin has considered stripping off [his
donkey skin] and clothing himself with the majesty of the lion,
he has now instead ended up as a wolf or a crocodile due to an
unfortunate leap, since he exceeded his ability in trying to ac-
complish this metamorphosis. 6 Good Lord, what can I say? I beg

2 See the Introduction. Ortwin Gratius ( 1480P-1542), an editor of the
Quentell Press in Cologne, was one of the most sarcastic opponents of John
Reuchlin. He mocked the Hebrew scholar in a poem. Reuchlin replied,
demonstrating that Gratius knew neither Greek nor Latin; therefore Luther
calls him “little poet” and “ass.” In 1514 Gratius published a collection of
literary attacks on Reuchlin (see the Introduction) to which Luther is here
referring. The Humanists took revenge in the Epistolae obscurorum virorum
( Letters of Obscure Men; see O.D.C.C., p. 459), in which they demonstrated
once more the literary ineptitude of Gratius and his friends.

3 Matt. 7:15.

4 By “asininity” Luther means Greek gibberish.

5 In the reply mentioned in note 2.

6 Perhaps an allusion to Ovids Metamorphoses; see O.C.D., pp. 630 f.

LETTERS

you, let us learn on this one occasion how absolutely right are
those who condemn envy . 7 I have in mind especially that envy
which is the most senseless of all: it is so utterly eager to harm,
yet unable to do so. Its licentiousness is without fear; its inability
to damage is full of pain and disturbance. That Ortwin stupidly
collects and twists ridiculous arguments which contradict each
other. Such procedure surely should be bewailed and deplored,
not so much because Ortwin heedlessly distorts the words and
mea nin gs of the definitely innocent Reuchlin , 8 but because through
all this raving he increases the damage of blindness and obstinacy
in his heart, as Scripture says, “He burdens himself with heavy
mud.” 9 In corresponding with you, I could laugh at many details
if it were not that one should rather weep over than laugh at
such great depravity of souls. I am afraid we shall have more
of this. May God quickly end it.

One thing, however, pleases me: namely, that this matter
reached Rome and the Apostolic See 10 rather than that permission
of far-reaching consequence would be granted to these jealous
people of Cologne to pass judgment . 11 Since Rome has the most
learned people among the cardinals, Reuchlin s case will at least
be considered more favorably there than those jealous people
of Cologne— those beginners in grammar!— would ever allow. They
are unable to distinguish between what an author [only] reports
and what he himself believes; they cannot even understand what
he says, or— I should more correctly say— they do not want to
understand it.

7 Literally: “. . . how absolutely right, just, and sound is the opinion on envy
of all who have ever written or spoken, of all who presently are writing and
speaking, and of all who will write and speak [on this subject]."

8 Luther wrote Capnio, i.e., Reuchlin’s Hellenized name, the root of the word
which refers to smoke.

» Hab. 2:6 (Vulgate).

10 Both Reuchlin and his enemies had appealed to Rome and both were
summoned there.

11 Luther wrote in partibus latius . . . licentiam iudicandi; this is a techni-
cal term for referring a case to judges and granting them the authority to
deal with it. The University of Cologne and the Dominican monastery there
was the center of the agitation against Reuchlin. Jakob of Hochstraaten,
O.P., prior of the Cologne monastery, was inquisitor. He possessed wide
powers of censorship, which in Reuchlin’s case were greatly restricted through
the appeal to Rome; see note 10.

TO GEORGE SPENLEIN, APRIL 8, 1516

Farewell and pray for me, and let ns pray for our Reuchlin. 12
From the monastery , August 5, [15] 14

Friar Martin
Augustinian

To George Spenlein
Wittenberg, April 8, 1516

George Spenlein was an Augustinian friar in the monastery at
Wittenberg who had recently been transferred to Memmingen. In
this letter Luther is reporting on the disposal of some of Spenleins
possessions. It gives an insight into Luthers understanding of
justification and its implication for the Christian life prior to his
controversy with Rome.

Text in Latin: WA , Br I, 35-36. The following translation ,
with minor changes, is by Theodore G. Tappert and is used by
permission from Luther: Letters. LCC 18, 109-111. Published 1955,
The Westminster Press.

To the godly and sincere Friar George Spenlein,
Augustinian Eremite 1 in the monastery at Memmingen,
my dear friend in the Lord

Jesus Christ

Grace and peace to you from God the Father
and from the Lord Jesus Christ

My dearest Friar George: I wish you to know that I sold some
of your things for two-and-a-half gulden, 2 namely, the coat of
Brussels for one gulden, the larger work of the Eisenach theolo-

12 See note 8.

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 For various reasons it is difficult to give the gulden's exact dollar value. One
may ass um e that Luther used the so-called “Rhenish gulden,” which seems to
have been the common currency of the University of Wittenberg as well as
of Electoral Saxony. According to Schwiebert, pp. 257 ff., the Rhenish gulden
of 1536 had the buying power of approximately $13.40 in terms of 1913
values.

LETTERS

gian 8 for half a gulden, and the cowl and some other things for
one gulden. Some things are left, such as the Eclogues of Baptista
Mantuanus 4 and your collections [of other literary materials]. These
you must consider a loss, for we have not been able to dispose of
them. The two-and-a-half gulden which you owe to the Most
Reverend Father Vicar 5 we gave him in your name. The other
half gulden which you still owe him you must either try to pay
or get him to cancel. I felt that the Most Reverend Father was
so well disposed toward you that he would not object to doing so.

Now I should like to know whether your soul, tired of its own
righteousness, is learning to be revived by and to trust in the
righteousness of Christ. For in our age the temptation to pre-
sumption besets many, especially those who try with all their might
to be just and good without knowing the righteousness of God,
which is most bountifully and freely given us in Christ. They try
to do good of themselves in order that they might stand before
God clothed in their own virtues and merits. But this is impossible.
While you were here, you were one who held this opinion, or
rather, error. So was I, and I am still fighting against the error
without having conquered it as yet.

Therefore, my dear Friar, learn Christ and him crucified.
Learn to praise him and, despairing of yourself, say, “Lord Jesus,
you are my righteousness, just as I am your sin. You have taken
upon yourself what is mine and have given to me what is yours.
You have taken upon yourself what you were not and have given
to me what I was not.” 6 Beware of aspiring to such purity that

3 Summulae totius logicae . . . per lodocum Trutvetter Isenachcensem
Theologum (Erfurt: W. Schenck, August, 1501). The author, Jodocus Trut-
vetter of Eisenach, was one of Luthers teachers in philosophy and Scholastic
theology at the University of Erfurt (see p. 5; p. 59, n. 19), and this was his
major work on logic.

4 Poetical work of Baptista Mantuanus, a Carmelite who died in 1516?; modem
edition by W. P. Mustard, The Eclogues of Baptista Mantuanus (The John
Hopkins University Press, 1911).

5 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

6 This is one of the main ways Luther tried to express the mystery of salvation.
In his First Lectures on the Psalms (see p. 18, n. 3) he made the following
statement: through faith Christ and the sinner are, so to speak, initiated
into a marriage. The sinner is described as the prostitute who had been
cleansed and rehabilitated through this marriage; see WA 4, 130 f.; WA 3,
141. Later Luther developed this idea; in the 1520 treatise. The Freedom
of a Christian (see p. 180, n. 2), he gave this understanding of faith its finest

TO GEORGE SPENLEIN, APRIL 8, 1518

you will not wish to be looked upon as a sinner, or to be one . 7
For Christ dwells only in sinners. On this account he descended
from heaven, where he dwelt among the righteous, to dwell among
sinners. Meditate on this love of his and you will see his sweet
consolation. For why was it necessary for him to die if we can
obtain a good conscience by our works and afflictions? Accordingly
you will find peace only in him and only when you despair of
yourself and your own works. Besides, you will learn from him
that just as he has received you, so he has made your sins his own
and has made his righteousness yours.

If you firmly believe this as you ought (and he is damned
who does not believe it), receive your untaught and hitherto erring
brothers, patiently help them, make their sins yours, and, if you
have any goodness, let it be theirs. Thus the Apostle teaches,
“Receive one another as Christ also received you to the glory of
God .” 8 And again, “Have this mind among yourselves, which
you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God,
[did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped], but
emptied himself,” etc . 9 Even so, if you seem to yourself to be
better than they are, do not count it as booty, as if it were yours
alone, but humble yourself, forget what you are and be as one
of them in order that you may help them.

Cursed is the righteousness of the man who is unwilling to
assist others on the ground that they are worse than he is, and
who thinks of fleeing from and forsaking those whom he ought
now to be helping with patience, prayer, and example. This would
be burying the Lord s talent and not paying what is due . 10 If you
are a lily and a rose of Christ, therefore, know that you will live
among thorns. Only see to it that you will not become a thorn
as a result of impatience, rash judgment, or secret pride. The
rule of Christ is in the midst of his enemies, as the Psalm puts
it . 11 Why, then, do you imagine that you are among friends?

formulation; see WA 7, 22 ff., 49 ff.; LW 31, 343 ff. See also WA 2, 742 ff.;
LW 35, 49 ff.

7 For a similar statement, see p. 282.

8 Rom. 15:7 (Vulgate).

"Phil. 2:5-7.

10 Matt. 25:18; 18:28.

11 Ps. 110:2. See also p. 252, n. 12.

LETTERS

Pray, therefore, for whatever you lack, kneeling before the face
of the Lord Jesus. He will teach you all things. Only keep your
eyes fixed on what he has done for you and for all men in order
that you may learn what you should do for others. If he had
desired to live only among good people and to die only for his
friends, for whom, I ask you, would he have died or with whom
would he ever have lived? Act accordingly, my dear Friar, and
pray for me. The Lord be with you.

Farewell in the Lord.

From Wittenberg , April 8, 1516

Yours,

Friar Martin Luther

Augustinian

To John Lang
Langensalza, May 29, 1516

During the years 1513-1517 , Luther gained fame as an academic
lecturer; his reputation rose correspondingly in his Order and in
1515 he was elected district vicar of the Congregation of the
Reformed Augustinians of central Germany ( see p. 6, n. 3). In
the performance of his duties he had to inspect the monasteries
in his district and check on their administration , as well as on the
conduct of the friars . During one of his inspection journeys in
the spring of 1516 he visited the monastery in Erfurt. Later, while
still traveling from one monastery to another, he wrote this letter ,
seeking to clarify some budget matters of the monastery in Erfurt .

John Lang (1488P-1548), an Augustinian of Erfurt, pursued his
academic career with Luther at Erfurt and Wittenberg. In 1516
he was transferred to the Erfurt monastery where he was made
prior, and in April of 1518 he succeeded Luther as district vicar
(see p. 61, n. 6). An adherent of Luther's teaching, he introduced
the Reformation in Erfurt about 1520.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 41-42.

TO JOHN LANG, MAY 29, 1516

To the venerable and godly Father John Lang,

Bachelor of Theology, prior of the Augustinian Eremites 1 at Erfurt,
always dear to me in the Lord

Jesus

May grace and peace be multiplied to you

Excellent Father, and my faithful co-worker in the Lords work:
now that I am gone something comes to my mind of which I had
not thought during my last visit, nor had I thought of it, would I
have considered it important or formed a clear idea of it. The
point is that the guest quarters (which I have always considered
a big danger to our monasteries if abused, although they can be
a God-pleasing service if administered in responsibility to the
Lord) cannot be better handled and managed unless one carefully
watches what and how much is spent for them. Therefore with
confidence in you (in which I believe that you will do more than
I wish), I do not order but rather admonish you in the Lord to
draw up a special fist, in which you record daily how much beer,
wine, bread, meat, and, in short, how much of anything else may
have been used in the guest house. Of course do not list your
official expenses and those of the other friars , 2 but only those
incurred because of the usual guests. If you do not find a more
efficient form, then organize this list so that you write in different
columns the following: on the day of this saint, or on this week-
day, so much was consumed— for instance, so much wine, so much
bread, etc., by this or that guest. Please do not consider this a
tedious or superfluous undertaking; otherwise I would have to
order you to do it. Perhaps you do not know what my thinking
is. Through such organization (unless I am totally wrong) you
will be able to see whether the monastery is a monastery rather
than a tavern or hotel. For through this method you will be able
to know not only how much was used up but also to whom and
on which days you have shown hospitality and, finally, to what
guests you extended the honor of such hospitality. In addition

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 Perhaps Luther was thinking of expenses incurred for graduations and
ordinations.

LETTERS

you can thus counter the dissatisfaction of the brethren and give
an accounting if, for instance, you should be blamed for mis-
management— and also accomplish many other things which I do
not mention now.

I also want you to prepare a separate list enumerating the
comings and goings of mendicant friars and their hangers-on. Then
you can oppose those restless and insatiable people who are so
proud of their great usefulness and of the multitude of their good
works by telling them instead how profusely they imbibe.

Farewell, be firm and the Lord will be with you. Remember
that you are placed as a sign which will be spoken against: 3 for
some a blessed life-giving fragrance, for others, truly a scent causing
death . 4 Do pray for me.

From Langensalza, May 29, 1516

Friar Martin Luther

I found no monasteries in this district 5 which are in as good
order as, by God’s grace, the one at Gotha and this one at
Langensalza. The latter we examined in one hour, the former in
about two, and therefore we finished quickly. God willing, we
shall go tomorrow to Nordhausen. I hope the Lord works even
without me in these places and governs their spiritual and temporal
affairs in spite of the devil. Some kind of illness has attacked me;
if the Lord does not prevent it I shall end up with a fever. Please
pray for me that God’s most glorious will toward me may always
be praised. Amen.

« Luke 2:34.

4 II Cor. 2:15-18.

5 See the Introduction to this letter.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 24, 1510

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, August 24, 1516

Luther hastily seeks the help of Spalatin, librarian of the Electoral
library , in obtaining some information on the Apostle Bartholomew .

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f. On the date of this letter ,
see WA, Br 1, No. 19, Introduction.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 50.

To my friend George Spalatin, servant of God
Jesus

Greetings. I seek a service, dearest Spalatin, requiring your love
and faithfulness. Please loan a copy of St. Jerome’s letters 1 to
me for an hour, or at least (and this I would like even more) copy
for me as quickly as you can what that saint has written about
St. Bartholomew the Apostle in the little book On Famous Men. 2

1 should have it before noon, since I will then be preaching to
the people. 3 I am quite annoyed with the nonsense and the lies
to be found in the Catalogue 4 and the Golden Legend . 5 Farewell,
excellent Brother.

From our little monastery

Friar Martin Luder 6
Augustinian

Don’t be surprised that I, a theologian, don’t have Jeromes

1 St. Jerome's letters: see Petrology, pp. 471 f. For the text, see MPL 22;
for an English translation, see PNF 2 6.

2 De viris illustribus (On Famous Men), 36, and De vitis apostolorum (On
the Lives of the Apostles ); see MPL 23, 683 and 762.

3 This sermon is printed in WA, 1, 79 ff.; see also WA 4, 683 fiF.

4 Peter de Natalibus, Catalogus sanctorum (Catalogue of Saints) (Lyons:
G.L. [?], 1508).

5 Legenda aurea (Golden Legend) by Jacob of Voragine; published in
several editions, this is a popular thirteenth-century handbook of the lives
of the saints. See O.D.C.C., pp. 569 f. It is not quite clear to what “lies”
concerning St. Bartholomew Luther is referring.

6 This is a variation of the spelling of Luther's name; we do not know why
he used it, but it appears in several of his early letters.

LETTERS

works. I am waiting for the edition by Erasmus. 7 John Lang 8
has taken with him the edition 8 I generally had used, [and he
has even] sold it.

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, September 9, 1516

Luther reports in this letter on his academic work , especially on
the publication of the First Lectures on the Psalms .

On the controversial date of this letter , see S-J I, 48, n. 2,
and WA, Br 1, 53 ff. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f .

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 56.

To the most learned George Spalatin, a priest of Christ,
whom I venerate in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. When I finally returned yesterday 1 late in the day, I
found your letter, best Spalatin. Please answer Martin Mercator 2
on my behalf that he cannot expect my lecture notes on the
Psalms. 3 Although I am not at all eager that they be published

7 This nine-volume edition was published in the summer of 1516 by John
Froben in Basel. Erasmus edited only the first four volumes, which con-
tained the letters.

8 John Lang had recently been transferred to Erfurt; see p. 14.

9 This edition of Jerome’s works cannot be identified exactly. The first
edition of Jerome’s letters (and of some of his treatises) was published in
Rome in 1470. For more details on the early editions of Jerome’s works,
see PNF 2 6, xxvl

1 Perhaps from another visitation journey; see p. 14.

2 The identity of this Martin Mercator could not be established. Perhaps
Mercator is a professional name and one would then have to read “the
merchant” (or businessman) Martin. But this, too, does not give any real
clue to his identity.

8 This is a reference to Luther’s famous first exegetical lecture, the Dictata
super Psalterium ( First Lectures on the Psalms). This series of lectures was
delivered from August, 1513, to October?, 1515, and is reproduced in WA
3—4. See Fife, pp. 190 ff.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 9, 1516

at any place or time, yet I am forced by an order 4 I have not
yet fulfilled. Now, however, having finished lecturing on Paul , 5
I shall devote myself wholeheartedly to this one task . 6 But even
after completion the manuscripts will not be in such a condition
that they could be printed without my supervision . 7 Further, our
Liberal Arts Faculty wish them to be printed by our printer; 8
this [work] could not be started before Lent. [Were they printed
here] this would please me too— if they must be published at
all— primarily because they would then be printed in a rougher
type face. I am not impressed with publications printed in elegant
type by famous printers. Usually they are trifles, worthy only of
the eraser.

Farewell.

Written in haste from the monastery, at noon, the day after
the Nativity , 9 1516

Friar Martin Luder 10

Augustinian

4 Perhaps by von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

5 Lectures on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; see WA 56; 57. Luther ended
this course on September 7, 1516.

6 Luther never edited these lectures; in the spring of 1517, however, he
published a commentary on the Seven Penitential Psalms (see WA 1, 158 ff.;
LW 14, ix f., 138 ff.), in which he used some of the material of his First
Lectures on the Psalms.

7 The printing would therefore have to be done by the local press.

8 John Griinenberg, who had settled down in Wittenberg in 1508. He printed
the commentary on the Seven Penitential Psalms (see notes 6 and 7). His
type faces and his work must have been far from the best, since Luther re-
peatedly complained about them; see pp. 75, 81, 150, 255, 288, 292.
Griinenberg used small type faces and many abbreviations, a style of printing
commonly called Antique. On printing books in Wittenberg, see W. Mejer,
Der Buchdrucker Hans Lufft zu Wittenberg (Leipzig: K. Hiersemann, 1923);
O. Clemen, Die lutherische Reformation und der Buchdruck ( “Schriften des
Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte,” 167 [Leipzig: Heinsius, 1939]). On
Griinenberg, see G. Wustmann, Aus Leipzigs Vergangenheit (Leipzig, 1885),
pp. 39 f.; Friedensburg, G.U.W., p. 78; Urkundenbuch 1, 72.

8 “Nativity” can refer to the Nativity of the Virgin ( September 8) or to the
Nativity of Our Lord, but the reference to the end of the lectures on St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans (see note 5) suggests the former.

10 See p. 17, n. 6.

LETTERS

To Michael Dressel
Wittenberg, September 25, 1516

In this letter Luther, as district vicar, deposes Michael Dressel,
the prior of the Augustinian monastery in Neustadt/Orla, and
arranges for the election of the new prior. He reports on other
monasteries and on the plague in Wittenberg.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 57-59.

To the venerable and godly fathers, to Friar Michael Dressel,
prior of the monastery of the Eremites of St. Augustine 1
in Neustadt,

and also to the seniors and officers of that monastery,
my beloved in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings in the Lord. I hear with sorrow— as I ought to be
sorrowful about hearing such news— excellent fathers and friars,
that you live without peace and unity. You live in one house,
but you are not of one mind, and you are not of one heart and
one soul in the Lord , 2 as required by the Rule . 3 That way of
miserable and useless living comes either from the weakness of
your humility— because where there is true humility, there is
peace— or it originates in my negligence. As a matter of fact, it
must be both your fault and mine, because we do not weep aloud
before the Lord who has created us and we do not pray that he

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 Acts 4:32.

8 Luther refers to Chapter 1 of the Regula Augustini, i.e., the constitution
of the Augustinian Eremites. This is the so-called Regula tertia, or Third
Rule, which is a summary and explanation of the Second and First Rule.
According to tradition all three Rules were drawn up by Augustine himself,
but this assumption is highly controversial. When Luther quotes the Rule
he refers to the Regula Augustini in the edition prepared by von Staupitz
and published in 1504. For the text of the Rule, see Lucae Holstenii codex
regutarum monasticorum et canonicorum (Wien, 1759), II, 123 ff. See also
E. A. Foran, O.S.A., The Augustinians from St. Augustine to the Union, 1256
(London: Oates and Washbume, Ltd., 1938); O.D.C.C., p. 109.

TO MICHAEL DRESSEL, SEPTEMBER 25, 1516

make our way straight in his sight and lead us in his righteous-
ness . 4 * He errs, he errs, he errs who presumes to guide himself by
his own wisdom— not to speak of guiding others. But guidance
must be obtained from God by humble prayer and a devout mind,
as the Psalm says, “Direct my steps according to your word .” 6
And Tobias teaches his son: “At all times praise the Lord and
plead with him to guide your ways .” 6 Because you have not
done this, or you have not done it properly, it is no wonder that
you were not directed but rather hindered. What now? Life
without peace is dangerous because it is without Christ, and it
is death rather than life.

Therefore I am forced to do in my absence what I did not
want to do while present . 7 Of course I would by far prefer being
with you now, but I cannot be. For that reason, receive my
order in salutary obedience, if by chance the Lord of peace will
deign to work with us. The entire trouble, or rather the root of
your disorder, is that you are not in concord with your head, the
prior; this is more harmful than if one friar disagrees with
another. Therefore, by authority of this office , 8 I order you. Friar
Michael Dressel, to resign from your office and [surrender] the
seal. By the same authority I release you from the office of prior
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen. And since I am absent this letter should have the same
effect upon you as I would, were I present . 9

I do not want you to complain that I have judged you with-
out a hearing, or that I have not accepted your defense. I am
completely convinced that everything you did, you did with the
best of intentions. Under no circumstances could I think that
you have done anything intentionally or maliciously from which
disturbance might have arisen. You have done as much as you

4 Ps. 5:8.

® Ps. 119:133 (Vulgate).

6 Tob. 4:20 (Vulgate).

7 Perhaps during the visitation journey mentioned on p. 18.

8 Luther in his position as district vicar (see p. 14) was superior of the
monastery in Neustadt

9 Literally: “And being absent, I want this letter to do to you, who are not
available to me now, [precisely] what I would have done to you, could I
be with you."

LETTERS

had grace to do. I thank you for this, and if any of your friars
should not show you their gratitude I should be most displeased.

The following should console you. It is not enough that a
man be good and pious by himself. Peace and harmony with
those around him are also necessary. For the sake of preserving
peace, the best undertakings must often be deemed unsatisfactory
and be rightly condemned. How much less, then, can undertakings
which have not led to peace, though done with good intentions
and complete devotion, be considered preferable to peace!

Since the prior is now released from his office, I ask you for
the sake of Christs mercy to plan immediately and unanimously
[the election of the new prior]. Choose three candidates in order
of preference, according to the Rule . 10 I have often found elections
to be useless and votes cast in vain. As a result, [I urge you]
to conduct this business sensibly and not to elect anyone who is
not eligible [for this office], or have anyone of you even cast his
vote for such a man; by this I mean someone who may already
have an office or who for other reasons is not eligible. In voting
this way one wastes time and effort and the votes are cast in vain.
Therefore I would like you to list publicly, before the election,
all who are not eligible, so that everyone may know for whom
he cannot vote. It would not be wrong if you would also list
some [friars] qualified for election for the benefit of any who
perhaps do not know who is eligible.

Whomever you might elect, my excellent friars, do this with
all deliberation so that you do not search [for the right candidate]
by means of your own ability, but as I have already said, ask
with constant prayers for the Lords guidance. Scripture states,
namely, in Jeremiah, “I know, O Lord, that a man's way is not
his own, nor are the steps in which he walks his own .” 11 For
behold, I declare to you and I predict by this letter that if you
will not maintain your Rule by prayers as a trust of God, you
will not have peace and favorable results, even if St. John the
Baptist were your prior. Everything rests in the hand of the
Lord. He who does not believe this will suffer distress and rest-
lessness until he finds out by experience.

10 See note 3. On the way in which a prior was elected, see Kolde, pp. 224 f .
n Jer. 10:23 (Vulgate).

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, OCTOBER 19, 1510

I ask you to be diligent and faithful in the training of novices.
This is, of course, the first and most important task of the whole
monastery, as I have said and stressed during my visit with you.
Farewell, and pray for me and for all of us.

In the monastery at Magdeburg, Friar John Busch, the sub-
deacon, passed away; at Dresden, the Father Senior, John Kunzel.
The plague roars around us, and we daily expect the fate the
people of Magdeburg suffer. Therefore pray for us and the
brethren at Magdeburg, that the Lord may in mercy call whom
he intends to call.

Farewell in the Lord.

From Wittenberg , September 25, 1516

Friar Martin Luder 12
District vicar of the Augustinians

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, October 19, 1516

In 1515/16, Luther lectured on Romans, basing his work on the
Vulgate. But as soon as Erasmus published his Greek text of*the
New Testament, Luther used this edition, which introduced him to
Erasmus’ theology. Although Luther appreciated Erasmus’ scholar-
ship, he realized the gulf separating him from Erasmus’ theology. At
issue were justification and the interpretation of Scripture. Here
Luther criticizes Erasmus and asks Spalatin to tell Erasmus of his
opinion.

On Luther’s relationship to Erasmus, see pp. 116 f. See also
pp. 5 f., 18 f., 52 ff. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 70-71.

To the servant of Christ and priest of the Lord,

George Spalatin, a most learned Master [of Arts],
my sincere friend and upright brother

Jesus

12 See p. 17, n. 6.

LETTERS

Greetings. What disturbs me about Erasmus, that most learned
man, my Spalatin, is the following: in explaining the Apostle
[Paul], he understands the righteousness which originates in
“works” or in “the Law” or “our own righteousness” (the Apostle
calls it that) 1 as referring to those ceremonial and figurative ob-
servances [of the Old Testament]. Moreover he does not clearly
state that in Romans, chapter 5, the Apostle is speaking of original
sin, although he admits that there is such a thing. Had Erasmus
studied the books Augustine wrote against the Pelagians (espe-
cially the treatises On the Letter and the Spirit , On Merits and
Forgiveness of Sinners , Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians,
and Against Julian, 2 almost all of which can be found in the eighth
volume of his works), 3 and had he recognized that nothing in
Augustine is of his own wisdom but is rather that of the most out-
standing Fathers, such as Cyprian, [Gregory of] Nazianzus,
Rheticus, Irenaeus, Hilary, Olympius, Innocent, and Ambrose, 4
then perhaps he would not only correctly understand the Apostle,
but he would also hold Augustine in higher esteem than he has
so far done.

I definitely do not hesitate to disagree with Erasmus on this
point, because in Bible exegesis I esteem Jerome 5 in comparison to
Aufustine as little as Erasmus himself in all things prefers Jerome
to Augustine. Devotion to my Order does not compel me to ap-
prove of the blessed Augustine; before I had stumbled upon his
books I had no regard for him in the least. 6 But I see that the

1 Rom. 9:31-32; 10:3.

2 For the bibliography of St. Augustine's writings against the Pelagians, see
Patrology, pp. 508 f.; O.D.C.C., pp. 107 f.; for the text, see MPL 44, 45; for
an English text, see PNF 1 5. The Pelagians were opponents of Augustine who
maintained the concept of absolute free will against his determinism.

3 Luther refers to the edition of St. Augustine's works published in 1506 by
John Amerbach in Basel.

4 On the lives and works of these church fathers, see O.D.C.C. and Patrology ;
which of their works Luther had actually studied cannot be determined
exactly. The works of Rheticus, bishop of Autun at the time of Constantine
(early fourth century), and of Olympius, a bishop in Spain also at the time
of Constantine, were known to Luther only from quotations in Augustine's
works. A similar list of church fathers is in WA 1, 607; LW 31, 214 f.

5 On the importance of St. Jerome as a biblical scholar, see O.D.C.C., pp.
719 f ., and Patrology, pp. 466 ff.

6 Luther certainly had become familiar with some of Augustine's works in
the studium generale (see p. 28, n. 3). However it is generally agreed that
he did not study them carefully before 1509. See p. 42.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, OCTOBER 19, 1516

blessed Jerome emphasizes and puts great weight on the historical
meaning of Scripture. How amazing that he interprets Scripture
better when he skims over the surface— as for instance in his letters 7
—than when he labors over it, as in his minor works . 8

The “righteousness based upon the Law” or “upon deeds” is,
therefore, in no way merely a matter of [religious] ceremonial but
rather of the fulfilment of the entire Decalogue. Fulfilment with-
out faith in Christ— even if it creates men like Fabricius, Regulus , 9
and others who are wholly irreproachable in the sight of man-
no more resembles righteousness than sorb apples resemble figs.
For we are not, as Aristotle believes, made righteous by the doing
of just deeds , 10 unless we deceive ourselves; but rather— if I may
say so— in becoming and being righteous people we do just deeds.
First it is necessary that the person be changed, then the deeds
[will follow]. Abel pleases [God] before his gift does . 11 But more
of this at another time.

I ask you, therefore, to do the service of a friend and Christian
and inform Erasmus of my thoughts . 12 I hope and desire that he
will be highly esteemed. But I am afraid that because of his fame
many will take up the defense of the literal, that is, the dead , 18

7 Luther must have studied them quite carefully; see pp. 17 f.

8 I.e., his commentaries on various books of the Bible; for an evaluation
of these, see Patrology, p. 470.

9 Two heroes of Roman history: Gajus Fabricius Luscinus (see O.C.D., p. 355)
and Marcus Atilius Regulus (see O.C.D., p. 757).

10 This is a reference to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, II, 1-7. For Luther's
evaluation of Aristotle, see pp. 37 f., 41 f.

n Gen. 4:4.

12 On December 11, 1516, Spalatin did write to Erasmus, as requested. His
letter reproduced the greater part of Luther's letter; however it does not
mention Luther's name; see Allen 2, 501. It seems that Erasmus never
acknowledged this letter in spite of Spalatin's reminder of November 13, 1517;
see Allen 3, 711. Spalatin's first letter may have been lost, or perhaps Erasmus
was indignant and did not want to answer.

i® Luther placed “literal," “historical," or “dead” understanding of Scripture
over against “spiritual” understanding, in which the reader not only looks
“objectively" at the text but applies it to his own situation before God; thus
the reader enters into a personal relationship with God in which the Holy
Spirit is active. This differentiation in the understanding of Scripture must be
viewed against the background of Paul's distinction between “the letter which
kills" and “the spirit which gives life” (II Cor. 3:3-6), as interpreted by
Augustine in his De spiritu et litera (On the Spirit and the Letter); see
p. 54, n. 7. Augustine understood this passage as applying to the difference

LETTERS

understanding [of Scripture], of which the commentary of Lyra , 14
and almost all the commentaries written since St. Augustine, are
so full. Even Stapulensis , 15 a man otherwise spiritual and most
sound— God knows— lacks spiritual understanding in interpreting
divine Scripture; yet he definitely shows so much of it in the con-
duct of his own life and the encouragement of others.

You could call me rash for bringing such famous men under
the whip of Aristarch , 16 if you would not know that I do this out
of concern for theology and the salvation of the brethren.
Farewell, my Spalatin, and pray for me.

In great haste, from a comer in our monastery, October 19,

1516

Friar Martin Luder 17

Augustinian

between the Law of God and the Spirit of God. The Law commands obedi-
ence but cannot evoke it and, therefore, has to condemn or kill man; hence
“dead” understanding. The Spirit gives life because he moves the heart of
man and enables him to fulfil God's commandments. For further details, see
Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (companion vol. to LW 1-30), pp. 5ff.;
Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God: Luther Studies (New York, 1953),
pp. 81 ff.; W. A. Quanbeck, “Luthers Early Exegesis,” Luther Today (“Martin
Luther Lectures,” Vol. I [Decorah, Iowa, 1957]), pp. 37 ff.; LCC 15, xxiv ff.

14 Nicholas of Lyra, O.F.M. ( 1270P-1340P), wrote a Bible commentary, the
Postillae perpetuae in Vetus et Novum Testamentum ; it was the exegetical
handbook of the later Middle Ages. “As against the current allegoristic inter-
pretations of the Bible, he set himself to arrive at the exact and literal
sense . . .” (O.D.C.C., p. 957). In the First Lectures on the Psalms (see
p. 18, n. 3), Luther made great use of Lyra’s commentary; see Fife, pp.
193 f. Luther’s statement here should be compared with his later comment
(recorded by A. Lauterbach) in which Luther apparently highly recommended
Lyra’s work as work of an outstanding historian; see WA, TR 4, No. 4673.

15 Stapulensis is the Latinized name of the famous French Humanist Lefevre
dEtaples ( 1455P-1536 ) ; see O.D.C.C., p. 489. In 1509 he published a com-
mentary on the Psalms ( Psalterium Quincuplex ) and in 1512 a commentary
on the Pauline epistles. Luther made great use of the former work in his
First Lectures on the Psalms (see p. 18, n. 3; Fife, pp. 190 ff.), and his
desk copy with many marginal notes is available; see WA 4, 466 ff. On
the importance of Lyra and Faber for the development of Luther’s herme-
neutics, see the literature mentioned in note 13; see also Schwiebert, pp.
275 ff.; Fife, pp. 179 ff.; K. Bauer, Die Wittenberger Universitatstheologie
und die Anfdnge der Deutschen Reformation (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, Paul
Siebeck, 1928).

16 Cicero (Ep. ad Atticum I, 14, 3), Horace (Ars poetica 450), and other
classical authors considered Aristarch of Samothrace (215P-143? b.c.) the
most biting critic who had ever lived; see O.C.D., p. 89. Luther may have
learned of Aristarch through the works of Erasmus; see Clericus 2, 205, A

17 See p. 17, n. 6.

TO JOHN LANG, OCTOBER 20, 1510

To John Lang

Wittenberg, October 26, 1516

This letter gives us insight into the daily routine of Luthers life .
Complaining about the size of his correspondence , Luther reports
on his duties in the monastery and as a vicar of a district . In
addition there were his academic responsibilities . Commenting on
the transfer of friars from Erfurt to Wittenberg, either already
completed or still contemplated by Lang, Luther tells briefly of
the situation in the Wittenberg monastery and in the plague-
infested city. In the last paragraphs Luther gives the Prior of the
Erfurt monastery an almost official-sounding report on current busi-
ness within the German Congregation of the Augustinians: Father
Spangenberg is on an official journey through the Netherlands ;
Father Henry of Zutphen is prior at Dortrecht, and Father Henry
Zwetzen is prior at Neustadt; Lector Fug has sent encouraging
news concerning Reuchlins case ; Father Wenceslas Link is in
Munich; Father Fladenstein in Culmbach and Father Dressel in
Neustadt are relieved of their offices ; the Vicar General plans to
spend the winter in Munich. One item of business has to remain
unsettled for the moment, since Luther cannot read Langs last
letter.

On John Lang, see p. 14.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 72-73 .

To the venerable Father John Lang, Bachelor [of Theology],
prior of the Augustinians 1 at Erfurt, my friend

Jesus

Greetings. I nearly need two copyists or secretaries. All day long
I do almost nothing else than write letters; therefore I am some-
times not aware of whether or not I constantly repeat myself, but
you will see. I am a preacher at the monastery, I am a reader during

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

LETTERS

mealtimes , 2 I am asked daily to preach in the city church, I have
to supervise the study [of novices and friars ], 3 I am a vicar (and
that means I am eleven times prior ), 4 I am caretaker of the fish
[pond] at Leitzkau , 5 I represent the people of Herzberg at the
court in Torgau , 6 I lecture on Paul , 7 and I am assembling [material
for] a commentary on the Psalms . 8 As I have already mentioned,
the greater part of my time is filled with the job of letter writing.
I hardly have any uninterrupted time to say the Hourly Prayers 9
and celebrate [mass]. Besides all this there are my own struggles
with the flesh, the world, and the devil . 10 See what a lazy man
I ami

2 On this office, see p. 5, n. 9.

3 Usually each monastery had its own studium generate (see p. 7) supervised
by one of the theologically-trained friars. Here novices and friars were in-
structed in the history of the Order and the theology of the Orders patron,
St. Augustine. If preparing for the priesthood, the friars were also supposed
to study liturgy and Scholastic theology, especially the Sentences of Peter
Lombard (see O.D.C.C., pp. 1054 f.), which was the dogmatic handbook of
the time.

4 As district vicar, Luther had eleven monasteries under his jurisdiction;
see p. 14.

5 A fish pond in Leitzkau, near Magdeburg, belonged to the monastery in
Wittenberg; Luther had to collect the rent for it.

6 The city council of Herzberg was then involved in a controversy with the
Electoral court in Torgau with regard to the parish church. In 1492 Elector
Frederick had incorporated it into the Herzberg monastery. In 1515 the
Elector tried to return it to the city, an intention with which the monastery
was highly displeased. It seems that Luther tried to mediate between the
three parties. The text does not make it clear which side he defended.

7 Luther is referring to his lectures on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
(see WA 57), which he had just started; see note 17.

8 See p. 18, n. 3; p. 19, n. 6.

9 These are the prayers for the canonical Hours as laid down in the Breviary.
The western church recognizes seven Hours: Matins and Lauds, Prime,
Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline; see O.D.C.C., p. 659. In a later
comment on his life as a monk, Luther stated that he had been kept so
busy during the week that he had to neglect the Hourly Prayers; he had
tried to make up for his neglect by abstaining from meals and by praying
all day Saturday; see WA, TR 4, No. 5094.

10 This refers to Luther's geistliche Anfechtung, a term "for which there is
no English equivalent. It may be a trial sent by God to test man, or an
assault by the devil to destroy man. It is all the doubt, turmoil, pang, tremor,
panic . . . and desperation which invade the spirit of man.” Bainton, p. 42.
For this element basic to Luther’s religious make-up, see J. von Rohr, "A Study
of the Anfechtung of Martin Luther to the Time of His Evangelical Awaken-
ing with Special Reference to the Problem of Salvation” (Ph. D. dissertation,
Yale University, 1947); F. H. Littel (ed.), Reformation Studies. Essays in
Honor of Roland H. Bainton (Richmond, Va., 1962), pp. 46 ff.; G. Rupp,
The Righteousness of God: Luther Studies, pp. 81 ff.; L. Pinomaa, Der

TO JOHN LANG, OCTOBER 26, 1516

I think that in the meantime my decision and answer regard-
ing Friar John Metzel has reached you . 11 I shall see, however, what

I can do. How do you think I can house your S ardanapales and
Sybarites ? 12 If you have trained them poorly then you must sustain
those poorly trained people. I have enough useless friars around
here— if anyone is useless to a suffering soul. I have become con-
vinced that those who are no good at all are more useful than the
most useful ones; therefore for the time being, keep them.

With regard to the friars who have been sent to me, I believe
(yet I am not sure) that I have written to you recently. I have
sent the lay brother, together with a younger friar, to Master
Spangenberg’s place ; 13 they wished to go there so that they would

existenzielle Charakter der Theologie Luthers: Das Hervorbrechen der
Theologie der Anfechtung und ihre Bedeutung fur das Luther Verstandnis
(“Annales Ac. Scient.,” Finnicae XL VII [Helsinki, 1940]). For similar state-
ments, see pp. 143, 257, 319, 323 f., 357.

II The background of this statement is not known. Earlier in October Luther
had informed Lang that he would “give” him a certain John Metzeler. This
friar must be the one mentioned here; see WA, Br 1, 65.

12 Sybarites were the inhabitants of the old Greek city Sybaris (located in
southern Italy) who enjoyed luxurious living; see O.C.D., p. 870.
Sardanapales were the followers of the Assyrian king Sardanapulus (7th
century b.c.). Luther meant that he could not house Lang’s friars who
behaved like Sybarites and Sardanapales. Lang must have intended to transfer
more friars to Wittenberg. In the first sentence of the following paragraph
Luther refers to a “recent’ letter. This is WA, Br 1, No. 26, of the middle of
October, 1516, in which Luther agreed to keep the friars whom Lang had
sent (see WA, Br 1, 66), although originally he had not wanted to do so;
see WA, Br 1, 52 (to John Lang: August 30, 1516). Now, in this letter of
October 26, he wanted to put a halt to further transfers of friars to Witten-
berg. Luther’s reasons for this refusal were the poverty of the Wittenberg
monastery and the plague in the city. In addition he had enough useless friars!

13 Two of Lang’s transferees ( see note 12 ) were sent by Luther to the
Augustinian monastery of Eschwege, where John Bethel of Spangenberg was
staying. Spangenberg was graduated as Licentiate of Theology (see p. 264,
n. 3) from the University of Wittenberg in 1511 and then transferred to
the Eschwege monastery. In 1516 the vicar general of the Order, John von
Staupitz, sent him on a special mission to Dordrecht (see below). Spangen-
berg was successful in gaining the Dordrecht monastery for the Reformed
Congregation (see p. 6, n. 3). While prior of the Eschwege monastery
from 1518 to 1523, Spangenberg tried hard to stop the influence Luther's
ideas had on monastic life. In 1522, when it seemed that the German
Augustinians were doomed to lose their identity and when Wenceslas Link
resigned from the office of vicar general (see pp. 169 f.; p. 171, n. 7),
Spangenberg was elected vicar general. In this position he marshaled the
few traditional-minded German Augustinians to the cause of maintaining the
Order. Yet he realized his efforts were fruitless and resigned in 1529. In
1530 he was reported to be a pastor in Eschwege.

LETTERS

not remain in this climate, which is not good for their health . 14
I have kept two other friars, together with the two from Cologne . 15
I felt so sorry about their "aptitude” that even considering the loss
involved I would prefer to keep them rather than send them back.
Twenty-two priests, twelve novices, and in all, forty-one persons
live on our more than meager supplies; but the Lord will provide
for us.

You write that yesterday you started to lecture on the second
book of the Sentences. 1 * Tomorrow I shall begin with the Epistle
to the Galatians . 17 I am afraid, however, that the plague may not
allow the course to be continued. Around us the plague takes at
the most three or two [in a day]— though not yet daily. Today
a son of the craftsman (a neighbor living across from us) was
buried; yesterday he was still healthy— and another son also suffers
from the epidemic. What am I to say? The plague is here and
attacks quite cruelly and suddenly, especially the younger genera-
tion. You, together with Master Bartholomew, advise me to
escape . 18 Whereto should I flee? I hope the world will not fall to
pieces when Friar Martin tumbles down. Of course I shall disperse
the friars across the whole countryside if the plague increases.

14 For a similar statement, see p. 78.

15 In the middle of October Luther reported to Lang the arrival of these
two students from Cologne; see WA, Br 1, 67. They were a certain John
of Neuss and a certain Himmel, or perhaps Hummel, of Emmerich; the
latter was graduated as Master of Arts in February, 1518. In 1521 Himmel
became instructor at the University of Cologne but soon ran into trouble,
perhaps because he supported Luther. In 1527 he was in Wittenberg again;
in 1557 he died a faithful follower of Luther; see WA, Br 1, 69, n. 25.

16 During the summer of 1516 Lang was made supervisor of the studium
generate (see note 3) of the Erfurt monastery (see p. 5); he was then
also appointed sententiarius , a position in which he had to lecture on the
Sentences of Peter Lombard.

17 Luther began to lecture on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians on October
27, 1516, and ended this course on March 13?, 1517; see also note 7.

18 This apparently is Bartholomew Amoldi of Usingen ( 1465P-1532), one
of Luther's former teachers at the University of Erfurt. Following matricu-
lation in the University of Erfurt in 1484, Amoldi became a member of its
Philosophical Faculty in 1491 and was graduated as Doctor of Theology in
1514. He was a moderate Nominalist who criticized Occam's doctrine of
justification and replaced it with that of Thomas Aquinas and Albert the
Great. Due to the Reformation Amoldi had to leave Erfurt in 1525. He
became theological advisor to Conrad of Thiingen, the bishop of Wurzburg,
a position he held for the rest of his life. For other interpretations of this
sentence and its rather unclear structure in the original, see WA, Br 1, 74,
n. 16.

TO JOHN LANG, OCTOBER 26, 1516

My place is here, due to obedience. It would not be proper for
me to leave until the Reverend Father Vicar will for the second
time order me to leave . 19 It is not that I am not afraid of death
(I am not the Apostle Paul but only a lecturer on the Apostle
Paul!), but I hope the Lord will rescue me from my fears.

The Reverend Father Master John Hirschen, the prior at
Cologne, wrote me that Father Master Spangenberg 20 was re-
ceived with great honor and love by the citizens of Dortrecht,
and that the monastery there will shortly be more distinguished
than any other. Lector Henry , 21 who was once my classmate—
as they say— is prior there; before that he was sub-prior at Cologne.
Lector Fug reports that Reuchlins case is developing favorably,
and that [Reuchlin] conducts himself admirably . 22 With regard
to the “letter of order or permission” would you please also send
along an interpreter! I am unable to make out what those pages
contain . 23 Give my greetings to all who should be greeted; I
cannot write just now to the masters. I shall write more at an-
other time. If you wish you may read this letter to them.

Master Wenceslas has been released from his office and has
become a preacher at Munich . 24 Bachelor Fladenstein has also been
released from his office at Culmbach . 25 In Neustadt Friar Michael
has been released from office and Friar Henry Zwetzen is now prior

19 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1. In his (no longer extant) letter of
October 8 (see p. 32), he must have ordered Luther to leave the plague-
infested city; Luther apparently felt he should wait to hear further from
the Vicar General.

20 John of Spangenberg; see note 13.

21 Henry of Ziitphen had matriculated in Wittenberg in 1508, while Luther
was a student there; see p. 5. On the office of lector, see p. 7, n. 9.
On Luther’s tribute to Henry, one of the first martyrs of the Reformation,
see LW 32, 263 ff.

22 On John Reuchlins trial, see p. 10, n. 11. John Fug, wholeheartedly de-
voted to Reuchlin’s case, was sub-prior of the Cologne monastery and a
theologian of some stature. On the office of lector, see p. 7, n. 9.

23 The background of this statement is not known.

24 Wenceslas Link; see pp. 169 f. One cannot verify exactly the office from
which he had been released. In 1512 Link was dean of the Theological
Faculty of the University of Wittenberg and in 1515 prior of the Wittenberg
monastery (see p. 7). An Augustinian would frequently be “city preacher,
that is, the main and perhaps only preacher. Link’s new position could,
however, also mean that he had become a preacher of the Munich monastery.

25 Little is known of Fladenstein; in the summer semester, 1503, he had
matriculated in Wittenberg; see WA, Br 1, 75, n. 23. Bachelor is used here
as an academic title.

LETTERS

there. 26 I have made this change because I hoped to be in charge
there myself for half a year. 27 That place desperately needs some
one to rule it. On October 8 the Reverend Father Vicar wrote to
me again from Alberkirchen, that is, from the house of Pfeffinger, 28
where Pfeffinger and his Sarah are now raising a Bavarian pig. 29
He writes that he plans to enjoy a quiet winter in Munich.

In haste, farewell, and remember us in this time of the Lord's
visitation; to him be glory. Amen.

October 26, 1516

Friar Martin

Augustinian vicar 30

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, December 14, 1516

Luther expresses his appreciation for some cloth given to him by
Elector Frederick. He reports on a trip of von Staupitz through
the Rhineland and recommends to Spalatin the German Theology
and sermons by John Tauler .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br 1, 77-79.

To the servant of Christ and priest of the Lord,

26 See p. 20.

27 Just how— and at what date— Luther intended to be “in charge” there is
not clear.

28 In the fall of 1516 John von Staupitz (see p. 64, n. 1) stayed at a farm of
Deginhard Pfeffinger (the thrifty Electoral Saxon treasurer; see pp. 50 f., 78,
121) in Salmannskirchen (not Alberkirchen, as Luther wrote) in Upper Ba-
varia; see WA, Br 1, 75, n. 24. The Vicar's letter is no longer extant; see
note 19 .

29 “Pig” was a nickname for the Bavarians, since they raised the greatest
supply of pigs in Germany. The name of Pfeffinger's wife was Ehrentraut;
she was a member of the old Bavarian family Seiboldsdorf at Schenkenau.
When Luther calls her by the Jewish name “Sarah,” he is trying to be
humorous: the Jews were not supposed to have anything to do with pigs,
but “Sarah” Pfeffinger was raising a pig anyhow. How much of a joke this
actually was is another matter; see WA, Br 1, 75, n. 26.

30 On the office of district vicar, see p. 6, n. 3, and p. 14.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, DECEMBER 14, 1510

George Spalatin, Master of Art s, my most learned and sincere friend
and upright brother

Jesus

Greetings. Your letter, excellent Spalatin, was delivered to me
exactly on St. Lucias Day . 1 This is the letter in which, among
other things, you were rightly concerned [about the mail service]
and admonished me to forward my mail via the Wittenberg carrier
if I want to send something to you or to Hirschfeld . 2 I, too, have
wished nothing so much as a safe carrier or reliable agent for [my
letters]. I have indeed written two letters 3 to the venerable
Minorite Father James, the Sovereign’s 4 father confessor . 5 I asked
him both to thank the Sovereign in my behalf for so generously
providing me with cloth to wear that is perhaps better than is
fitting for a cowl, were it not a sovereign’s present, and to report
to the Elector on the relics which the Sovereign had commissioned
our Reverend Father Vicar 6 to take care of in the Rhineland. But

1 December 13, 1516; Spalatin’s letter does not seem to be extant.

2 Bernhard von Hirschfeld (1490-1551), Electoral Saxon councilor, went in
his early youth as a page to the Electoral Saxon court. In 1517 he undertook
a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. While in the service of the Saxon Elector
he worked primarily in the department of revenue. His abilities in financial
matters made him valuable to the church visitation of 1529. From 1529 to
1533 he was Amtmann , i.e., high constable, at Schleibe, and at the same
time a member of the Electoral court at Wittenberg. During the Smalcaldic
War (1546/47) he was commandant of Wittenberg. After the Smalcaldic
War he joined the administration of Maurice of Saxony. See ARG 8 (1911),
10 ff.

8 These letters seem to be lost.

4 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

5 James Vogt, or Voigt, O.F.M., a man of sincere piety, was prior of various
Franciscan monasteries in Saxony and Thuringia. He served Elector Frederick
as a father confessor, preacher, and counselor, and so had a deep influence
on the Elector's religious life. In 1493 Vogt accompanied the Elector to
the Holy Land. The collection of relics in the Castle Church in Wittenberg
was the object of his special love and care. He sympathized with the Ref-
ormation at the beginning, being impressed especially with the zeal and
integrity of Luther. However, after the Wittenberg disturbances of 1521/22
(see p. 386, n. 1) he rapidly withdrew from the cause of the Reformation.
He died in April, 1522. See ARG 6 (1909), 316, n. 2.

6 As vicar general, John von Staupitz ( see p. 64, n. 1 ) visited the Reformed
Augustinian monasteries in the Rhineland (see p. 61, n. 3) in the summer
of 1516. Elector Frederick had commissioned him to obtain from the Mother
Superior of the St. Ursula monastery in Cologne the relics of the famed
“Eleven Thousand Virgins." According to tradition sometime in the fifth

LETTERS

I do not know whether my letters ever arrived or ever will. There-
fore I also want to inform you of the current status of this matter.

The Reverend Father Vicar has succeeded in getting per-
mission from the Archbishop of Cologne 7 to secure the relics for
the Sovereign and also in having an agent or (as he is called)
official commissioner of the Archbishop appointed. The Sub-prior
of our monastery at Cologne 8 was commissioned by both the
Sovereign and the Vicar to seek out the relics and negotiate their
surrender. Yet after the departure of the Reverend Father Vicar,
the Mother Superior of St. Ursula (who was approached for the
relics by said agents ) 9 took shelter behind a papal prohibition;
she argued that she could not with good conscience consent to
release the relics without papal mandate or permission. Although
a copy of the papal permission [to obtain relics ] 10 was shown to
her, she has thus far refused [to surrender them],, since the copy
was not attested and sealed. So, if you wish, you may inform the
Elector that he should either send there a well-authorized copy of
the papal permission or else free the Reverend Father Vicar [from
further obligations in this regard].

You write that the Most Illustrious Sovereign refers to me
often and with great respect; this does not make me particularly
happy, yet I pray that the Lord God may reward his humility with
glory. Certainly I am not worthy that anyone should think of me,
not to mention a sovereign, and in addition one of such high
rank. Daily I see and realize that those people who have the worst
opinion of me benefit me most. Nevertheless I ask you to let me
extend my gratitude through you for the good will and kindness
of our ruler, even though I do not want to be praised by you or
anyone else, since the praise of man is always vain. Only praise
from God is genuine, as it is written, “My soul will be glorified

century these virgins left Britain, led by a chieftain’s daughter named Ursula;
they landed somewhere on the coast of the Netherlands, where they were
slaughtered by pagan Huns; see O.D.C.C., p. 1399.

7 Hermann von Wied, who later played an important role in the Reformation;
see O.D.C.C., p. 629.

8 A certain John Ferber was then sub-prior of the Cologne monastery; see
WA, Br 1, 80.

9 The Sub-prior as the Elector’s agent and a certain Martin Oed as the
Archbishop’s agent.

10 Issued by Pope Julius II in 1507 to Elector Frederick; see WA, Br 1, 80.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, DECEMBER 14, 1516

not in man but in God.” 11 And again, “Not in your name but in
his holy name you find your glory” 12 It is not that we feel that
people who praise us should be reproved for that, but the trouble
is that they praise men rather than God, to whom alone be praise,
honor, and glory. Amen.

You request my judgment regarding your plan to translate
some little writings into German. That is beyond my competence.
Who am I to judge what will appeal to the general public and be
of profit to them? Whatever pleases and is useful is so only by
the grace of God. Don’t you know that the more wholesome
something is, the less it is popular and the less it gains ground?
What is more wholesome than the gospel and Christ? Yet the peo-
ple treat them lightly; for most people [the gospel and Christ]
are a deadly fragrance, causing death, and only for a very few
are they a fragrance of life, bringing life. 13 You may say that you
want to be of help only to those who like good things. If this is
the case then you do not need my opinion any more. The sheep
always listen to every word of the shepherd. 14 They resent and
flee only from the word of strangers. Whatever you do, as long
as it is good and [according to] the word of Christ, do not doubt
that it will find acceptance and prove beneficial, but only in the
case of a very few souls, because sheep are very seldom found in this
kingdom of wolves. Yet above all, seek Christ’s counsel and will
through a brief humble prayer, for even good projects do not
please him if they are done without his command and will. So
says Isaiah 30 [ : 1], “Woe, rebellious sons, that you work out a
plan, but not mine, that you make a league, but it is not of my
Spirit.” Therefore do not follow your own good and pious inten-
tion (the way the great mass of monks and priests repeatedly
and hopelessly err), but ask for permission, or rather, for a directive
[from God], not only especially in this but also in all your work,
unless you want your work to become nothing but stubble. 15

Nevertheless I shall add my advice: if reading a pure and solid
theology, which is available in German and is of a quality closest

11 Ps. 34:2 (Vulgate? but RSV numbering).

12 Ps. 105:3 (Vulgate? but RSV numbering).

13 11 Cor. 2:15-16; see p. 16.

14 John 10:3.

1 5 See Isa. 47:14; I Cor. 3:12-13.

LETTERS

to that of the Fathers, might please you, then get for yourself the
sermons of John Tauler, the Dominican. 16 I am enclosing for you,
so to speak, the essence of them all. 17 I have seen no theological
work in Latin or German that is more sound and more in harmony
with the gospel than this. Taste it and see how sweet the Lord
is 18 after you have first tried and realized how bitter is whatever
we are.

Farewell, and pray for me.

From our monastery in Wittenberg , December 14, 1516

Friar Martin Luder 19
Augustinian

To John Lang

Wittenberg, February 8, 1517

This is a covering letter for Luthers (not extant) letter to his former
teacher Jodocus Trutvetter, whom Luther tries to dissuade from
adhering to Aristotelian principles . Luther takes this opportunity to
set forth his position on Aristotle and Scholastic theology.

On John Lang , see p. 14.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 1, 88-89.

To the venerable Father John Lang, Bachelor of Theology,
prior of the Eremites 1 at Erfurt, dear to me in the Lord

16 John Tauler, O.P. (d. 1361), was one of the most prominent representatives
of German mysticism; see O.D.C.C., pp. 1323 f. Luther studied the mystics,
perhaps upon the suggestion of John von Staupitz; he was deeply attracted
by them and to a certain degree was influenced by their thoughts; see
Bainton, pp. 56 f. In the summer and fall of 1516, John Lang and Luther
together thoroughly studied an edition of Tauler’s sermons published in
Augsburg in 1508; see WA, Br 1, 65. See also in this volume, pp. 366 f.

17 In December of 1516 Luther published in Wittenberg an anonymous
treatise, entitled Theologia Deutsch (see O.D.C.C., pp. 1343 f.; WA 1, 152;
LW 31, 73 ff.), which he considered the essence of Tauler's sermons.

18 Ps. 34:8.

i» See p. 17, n. 6.

!See p. 6, n. 3.

TO JOHN LANG, FEBRUARY 8, 1517

Jesus

Greetings. I am enclosing this letter, my Father, for the dis-
tinguished Mr. Jodocus from Eisenach . 2 This letter is filled with
serious questions regarding logic, philosophy, and theology; that is,
it is full of blasphemies and revilings against Aristotle , 3 Porphyry , 4
the masters of the Sentences , 5 or in other words against the hopeless
studies which characterize our age . 6 This is the way it will be
understood by those for whom it is an established fact that one
must be silent, not only as a five-year-old ( as the Pythagoreans 7
believe) but also perpetually and to all eternity, as the dead. We
are to believe everything, always obediently to listen and not even
once, by way of a mild introduction, wrangle or mutter against
Aristotle and the Sentences. What will they not believe who have
taken for granted everything which Aristotle, this chief of all
charlatans, insinuates and imposes on others, things which are so
absurd that not even an ass or a stone could remain silent about
theml

So by all means forward this letter to that excellent gentleman
and trace out quite carefully what he himself and all the others

2 Jodocus Trutvetter (see p. 12, n. 3) of Eisenach and Bartholomew Amoldi
of Usingen (see p. 30, n. 18) had been Luther’s teachers in the monastery
and at the University of Erfurt (see p. 5; p. 59, n. 19). They must have been
rather shocked by this onslaught of their former pupil. Apparently Luther
had to wait longer for an answer than he had hoped; see p. 41. The
letter Luther enclosed is not extant. In a letter of February 22, 1518, Luther
also mentioned a letter to Trutvetter and reports on its content; see p. 57.
Perhaps these two letters were identical; if not, they must have been of
similar content

3 Next to Plato, Aristotle (384-322 b.c.) is considered the most important
Greek philosopher. Some of his philosophical ideas became the basis for
Scholastic theology and were thus incorporated into Christian thought. See
O.D.C.C., pp. 83 f., 1225 f.

4 Porphyry (a.d. 232P-303?) was an outstanding representative of Neo-

Platonism. He collected and edited the works of Plotinus; he also wrote an
introduction to Aristotle’s Categories ; see p. 57, n. 10; O.D.C.C., pp. 1091 f.

6 The Sentences of Peter Lombard (see p. 28, n. 3; p. 30, n. 16) pre-
sented the Christian faith in a systematic way. It was the standard textbook
for theology in the Middle Ages and was commented upon by the masters
of the Sentences in their classroom lectures.

6 Luther agreed with the Humanists, who did everything they could to replace
these “hopeless studies,” that is, the study of Aristotle and the Scholastics,
with the study of the Bible and classical languages. See p. 41.

7 Disciples of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (580P-500? b.c.).

LETTERS

think of me in this respect and report it to me. I wish nothing
more fervently than to disclose to many the true face of that actor 8
who has fooled the church so tremendously with the Greek mask,
and to show to them all his ignominy, had I only time! I am work-
ing on short notes on the First Book of Physics 9 with which I am de-
termined to enact the story of Aristaeus against this, my Protheus. 10
He is the most subtle seducer of gifted people, so that if Aristotle
had not been flesh, I would not hesitate to claim that he was really
a devil. Part of my cross, indeed its heaviest portion, is that I
have to see friars born with the highest gifts for fine studies spend-
ing their lives and wasting their energies in such play-acting; in
addition universities do not cease burning and condemning good
books 11 but produce, or rather dream up, bad ones.

I wish that both Master Usingen and the gentleman from
Eisenach 12 would stay away from such work and one day no longer
pursue it at all. All my files are filled with material against [the
schoolmens] books, which I consider absolutely useless. All others
could see that too, if they would not be bound by the eternal law
of silence, as I have mentioned.

Farewell, and pray for me.

From Wittenberg , February 8, I5I6 13

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

8 Aristotle.

9 These notes on the first book of Aristotle’s Ta peri physeos (On Physics) are
lost. The theses of September, 1517, against Scholastic theology (see WA
1, 224 ff.; LW 31, 9 ff. ), however, are the results of this work on Aristotle
and present Luther’s criticism of the infiltration of theology by Aristotelian
philosophy.

10 Aristaeus, the son of the gods Apollo and Cyrene, captured and bound the
sea god and magician Protheus (see LW 31, 277, n. 26), in spite of the
magician repeatedly changing himself into animals, fire, and water; see
Vergil Georgica IV, 387 ff.; O.C.D., p. 89. Luther identified Aristotle with
Protheus.

11 Luther is perhaps thinking of the role of the University of Cologne in
the campaign against John Reuchlin; see p. 10, n. 11.

12 See note 2.

13 This date, although appearing in the extant manuscript copy of this letter
and most printed editions, is wrong. In February, 1516, Luther could not have
addressed Lang as “prior of the monastery in Erfurt,” since Lang was not
appointed to this position before May, 1516; see p. 14; WA, Br 1, 41.
In addition in letter No. 13 Luther refers to this letter, and No. 13 is dated
1517.

TO JOHN LANG, MARCH 1, 1517

To John Lang
Wittenberg, March 1, 1517

Luther transfers Gabriel Zwilling to the monastery in Erfurt; he
reports on his work on the Seven Penitential Psalms and also gives
his opinion of Erasmus .

On John Lang, see p. 14.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 90.

To the venerable teacher of true godliness, John Lang,
Bachelor of Theology, prior of the Augustinian Eremites 1
at Erfurt, esteemed by me in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. By order of the Reverend Father Vicar , 2 I am sending
to you, venerable Father, our Friar Gabriel . 3 According to the same
order you should take good care that he and the others behave in
the best way, that is, as Christians. It has been decided, and will
be good for him, that he should live in all things according to the
monastic discipline. You know that he is not yet familiar with or
trained in the regulations or customs of the Order. Finally, as
soon as possible release (together with this Friar Leonard ) 4 that

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

3 Gabriel Zwilling, an Augustinian, studied at the University of Wittenberg
from 1512 until 1517, when he was transferred to Erfurt. In the fall of
1521, while Luther was at the Wartburg, Zwilling introduced the first major
reform in the monastery in Wittenberg. He abandoned the celebration of
the mass in its traditional form and undertook steps to shape a new com-
munion liturgy (see pp. 324 f.). Together with Karlstadt and the “Zwickau
prophets” (see p. 364, n. 28), he tried to push the Reformation to a complete
separation from the Roman church. His zeal for breaking with everything
old subsided upon Luther’s return from the Wartburg in the spring of 1522.
Unlike Karlstadt, Zwilling was able to work out his differences with Luther
and regain the Reformer’s friendship. Zwilling later worked as a pastor in
Torgau, where he died in 1558.

4 The letter carrier; “Leonard” is missing in the manuscript copy of this
letter but can be found in the earliest printed edition. The WA, Br editor
suggests that this was Leonard Beier, an Augustinian of Munich (1495?-
1552?). Beier was graduated from Wittenberg University as Bachelor of

LETTERS

friar whom you have promised to send to us in his stead. We do
need a friar to replace Gabriel.

I have translated the Psalms and explained them in German; 5
even if they should please no one else, nonetheless they please me
exceedingly well. John, the printer , 6 is waiting for you to release
those 7 I have sent to you, however.

I am reading our Erasmus 8 but daily I dislike him more and
more. Nevertheless it pleases me that he is constantly yet learnedly
exposing and condemning the monks and priests for their deep-
rooted and sleepy ignorance. I am afraid, however, that he does
not advance the cause of Christ and the grace of God sufficiently;
here he knows even less than Stapulensis . 9 Human things weigh
more with him than the divine. Although I pass judgment upon
him reluctantly, nevertheless I do it to warn you not to read
everything, or rather, not to accept it without scrutiny, for we
live in perilous times. I see that not everyone is a truly wise
Christian just because he knows Greek and Hebrew. St. Jerome
with his five languages cannot be compared with Augustine, who
knew only one language . 10 Erasmus, however, is of an absolutely
different opinion on this. But the discernment of one who attributes
weight to man’s will is different from that of him who knows of
nothing else but grace. I definitely wish to keep this opinion a
secret so that I do not strengthen the conspiracy of his enemies . 11

Arts in October, 1516, and as Master of Arts in February, 1518. He ac-
companied Luther to Heidelberg in April, 1518 (see p. 60), and in the fall
of 1518 he also accompanied Luther to Augsburg (see p. 90, n. 4).

5 These are the Seven Penitential Psalms; see p. 19, n. 6.

6 John Griinenberg; see p. 19, n. 8.

7 ‘Those” refers either to certain pages of the manuscript of the Psalm
commentary (which Luther probably had sent to his friends in Erfurt for
critical appraisal), or to some friars apparently sent to Erfurt by Luther for
reasons unknown to us. In either case Lang was to release them and send
them back to Wittenberg— if pages, to be set in type, if friars, to aid in the
typesetting.

8 See pp. 23 ff., 52 ff.

9 Lefevre d’Etaples; see p. 26, n. 15.

10 St. Jerome ( see Patrology, pp. 466 f. ) was famous for his knowledge of
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. According to a letter of St. Augustine,
he knew the languages of almost all the nations ( Jews, Greeks, Chaldees,
Persians, Medes, and Arabs) as if he were one of them. St. Augustine, on
the other hand, could use only Latin.

11 For a similar statement, see p. 53.

TO JOHN LANG, MAY 18, 1517

Perhaps the Lord will give him, in His own good time, a true under-
standing.

Farewell, and greet the masters and the Lector; 12 find out
whether Doctor Jodocus will be kind enough to answer me. 18
From our hermitage in Wittenberg , March I, 1517

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian vicar 14

To John Lang
Wittenberg, May 18, 1517

Luther reports briefly on the prosperous development of “our”
theology , based on St. Augustine and the Bible , which is rapidly
superseding Scholasticism at the University of Wittenberg.

On the University reorganization , see pp. 37 f., 63, 82, 95 f.,
Ill f., 123, 165 f.; see also Schwiebert , pp. 293 ff. On John Lang,
see p. 14.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 99.

To my friend, Father John Lang, prior of the Eremites 1
of St. Augustine at Erfurt

Jesus

Greetings. I really had no other reason for writing to you except
that I thought this father 2 should not leave without a letter and
greetings. I am relieved, thanks to God, that Friar John Gumann 3
has returned home safely. The Reverend Father Vicar 4 writes that
he intends to come to see us very soon.

12 George Leiffer, whom Luther had especially invited to his graduation;
see p. 7.

13 See p. 37, n. 2.

14 On the office of district vicar, see p. 6, n. 3; p. 14.

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 This Augustinian is not known to us.

3 An Augustinian from Niirnberg who had matriculated in Wittenberg in
1506; see WA, Br 1, 99, n. 1.

4 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

LETTERS

Our theology and St. Augustine are progressing well, and
with God’s help rule at our University. Aristotle is gradually falling
from his throne, and his final doom is only a matter of time. 5 It
is amazing how the lectures on the Sentences 6 are disdained. In-
deed no one can expect to have any students if he does not want to
teach this theology, that is, lecture on the Bible or on St. Augustine
or another teacher of ecclesiastical eminence. 7

Farewell, and pray for me.

May 18, 1517

Friar Martin Luther

Greetings from Master Christian Goldschmidt, 8 who is visiting
me right now.

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, the end of August, 1517 1

This is a dinner invitation extended to Spalatin and some friends.
On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 103.

To my friend Spalatin, at the castle

5 For Luther’s opinion of Aristotle and the Scholastic theologians, see pp. 37 f.,
59.

6 See p. 37, n. 5.

7 About one year later Luther wrote to John Lang with reference to the
changes in the curriculum: Wittenberg University “is getting ahead. We
expect before long to have lectures on the two or rather three [classical]
languages, on Pliny, mathematics, Quintilian, and other excellent subjects,
after die absurd courses in Petrus Hispanus and Tartaretus [Scholastic
logicians] and in Aristode are dropped.” See WA, Br 1, 155; Schwiebert,
p. 297.

8 This was actually Christian During (d. 1533), who was often called
Aurifaber or Goldschmidt because of his profession. He also owned a res-
taurant and one of the major “trucking businesses” in Wittenberg, as well
as being in the publishing business. Over the years he became a very close
friend of Luther; see p. 202, n. 13.

1 The approximate date of this note can be established from Scheurl’s ( see
note 5, below) letters; see WA, Br 1, No. 44, Introduction.

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, OCTOBER 31, 1517

Jesus

Greetings. Come with the Father Confessor 2 and his friend 3 after
nine o'clock . 4 If Sir Christopher, the ambassador , 5 is staying with
you, he may come with you; otherwise our friend Otto 6 has been
told to invite him. Farewell. See to it that you also get some wine
for us, because as you know you will come from the castle to the
monastery and not from the monastery to the castle.

Friar Martin Luther

To Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz
Wittenberg, October 31, 1517

According to the officially approved practice of the medieval
church , absolution of sin was granted to the sinner who had re-
pented, upon his confession and satisfaction ; the latter consisted
of punishments (such as fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, or even
exclusion from the Eucharist) imposed on the penitent sinner by
the bishop or the priest on the basis of certain ecclesiastical regula-
tions. Yet the sinner who was reconciled with God through absolu-
tion still had to experience purgatory . This was considered a place
and state of temporary punishment where the sinner would expiate
his venial sins and experience such punishment as was still due,
so to speak, for mortal sins already forgiven . Having thus com-

- James Vogt; see p. 33, n. 5.

3 Unknown to us.

4 Luther did not make it clear whether he was inviting his friends to a late
morning or pre-midnight gathering. It may have been the former since the
monks arose at four or five a.m. and had their main meal well before noon;
see S-J 1, 60, n. 30. It may have been this main meal to which Luther was
inviting his friends.

5 Christopher Scheurl had been a professor of law at the University of Witten-
berg. After 1512, however, he was a legal counselor and special envoy of
his native city of Niimberg.

6 This was apparently the Augustinian friar Otto Beckmann of Westphalia.
According to WA, Br 1, No. 45, Introduction, Luther sent him to Erfurt in
September, 1517. On Beckmann, who in later years turned against Luther,
see ARG 7 (1910), 195 f.; S-J 1, 51, n. 2.

LETTERS

pletely atoned for his guilt he would be admitted to the Beatific
Vision of God.

Indulgences relaxed or even commuted the punishment the
penitent would have to undergo both in this world and in purga-
tory . Indulgence letters were granted for certain religious works
(such as participation in a crusade , the visiting of certain shrines,
praying in sanctuaries where relics of saints were kept, ordering
and paying for the celebration of masses) or simply for the pay-
ment of money to the church, a practice which became extremely
popular in the later Middle Ages. The treasury of the merits of
Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of all the saints was considered
to make available benefits sufficient to compensate for all the
sinners punishments. The treasury of merits was entrusted to and
administered by the church, which made it available to the faithful
by the granting of indulgences . There were two types of in-
dulgences : a partial one, available only at specific times and places,
and a general or plenary one, which was periodically granted by
the popes . During the later Middle Ages indulgences came to be
thought of mainly as a means of shortening the time a sinner would
have to spend in purgatory. The church went so far as to assure
the faithful that they could shorten not only their own suffering
but also that of their loved ones already in purgatory. Since purga-
tory was to cleanse the sinner of any guilt as yet unatoned, people
increasingly considered indulgences to be a means of canceling
their guilt. When Luther first began to deal with this problem the
papacy had issued various decrees concerning the understanding
and handling of indulgences, but it had not yet promulgated a
general dogma on this matter. See O.D.C.C., pp. 688 f., 1125 f.

In 1506 Tope Julius II proclaimed a plenary indulgence which
was renewed by Pope Leo X; the proceeds were to go toward
the construction of the Church of St. Peter in Rome. In 1515
Albrecht of Brandenburg (1490-1545) was put in charge of the
administration of this plenary indulgence in the ecclesiastical
provinces of Mainz and Halberstadt. He had become archbishop
of Magdeburg in 1513 and at the same time administrator of the
diocese of Halberstadt. In 1514 he was elected archbishop of
Mainz, thus becoming the highest church dignitary in the Empire .
This accumulation of offices was altogether contrary to ecclesiastical

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, OCTOBER 31, 1517

custom. To acquire the necessary dispensation and the chair of
Mainz , Albrecht had to pay a huge sum of money , which was
advanced by the Fuggers , one of the biggest banking concerns of
the sixteenth century. The sale of indulgences in the Archbishop’s
territories was to provide the means of reimbursing the Fuggers.
One-half of the income was designated for the Curia, and the
other half for the Fuggers. The actual promotion of the indulgences
teas entrusted to sub-commissioners and preachers (one of them
being the Dominican John Tetzel, see O.D.C.C., p. 1336), for whose
guidance Albrecht’ s chancellery had published an Instruction, list-
ing the various benefits of the indulgences offered to the people.

Moved by a deep pastoral concern, Luther nailed his Ninety-
five Theses (see WA 1, 233 ff .; LW 31, 25 ff.) to the door of the
Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517 . In these theses,
intended for a public academic disputation, Luther protested
against the sale of indulgences— “the bingo of the sixteenth century"
(Bainton, p. 72)— as an institution which undermined the indi-
viduaVs religious responsibility, the majesty of Gods law, and the
biblical understanding of repentance. This letter was written the
same day and is a covering letter for a copy of the Ninety-five
Theses; in it Luther requests that the indulgence traffic be halted
and the Instruction to the indulgence agents be withdrawn.

See LW 31, 19 ff.; Bainton, pp. 71 ff.; Fife, pp. 245 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 110-112.

To the Most Reverend Father in Christ, the Most Illustrious Lord,
Sir Albrecht, archbishop of the churches of Magdeburg and Mainz,
primate, margrave of Brandenburg, etc.,
my lord and shepherd in Christ, esteemed in respect and love

Jesus

Grace and mercy from God, and my complete devotion

Most Reverend Father in Christ, Most Illustrious Sovereign:
Forgive me that I, the least of all men, have the temerity to con-
sider writing to Your Highness. The Lord Jesus is my witness that
I have long hesitated doing this on account of my insignificance
and unworthiness, of which I am well aware. I do it now im-

LETTERS

pudently, and I am motivated solely by the obligation of my
loyalty, which I know I owe you, Most Reverend Father in Christ.
May Your Highness therefore deign to glance at what is but a
grain of dust and, for the sake of your episcopal kindness, listen to
my request.

Under your most distinguished name, papal indulgences are
offered all across the land for the construction of St. Peter. Now,
I do not so much complain about the quacking of the preachers,
which I haven’t heard ; 1 but I bewail the gross misunderstanding
among the people which comes from these preachers and which
they spread everywhere among common men. Evidently the poor
souls believe that when they have bought indulgence letters they
are then assured of their salvation . 2 They are likewise convinced
that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a
contribution into the chest . 3 Further, they assume that the grace
obtained through these indulgences is so completely effective that
there is no sin of such magnitude that it cannot be forgiven—
even if (as they say) someone should rape the Mother of God,
were this possible . 4 Finally they also believe that man is freed
from every penalty and guilt by these indulgences . 5

O great God! The souls committed to your care, excellent
Father, are thus directed to death. For all these souls you have the
heaviest and a constantly increasing responsibility . 6 Therefore I
can no longer be silent on this subject. No man can be assured
of his salvation by any episcopal function. He is not even assured
of his salvation by the infusion of God’s grace , 7 because the Apostle
[Paul] orders us to work out our salvation constantly “in fear and
trembling .” 8 Even “the just will hardly be saved .” 9 Finally the

1 The indulgence agents were not allowed to enter the territory of Electoral
Saxony, since the Elector did not want to lose the income from the indulgences
which could be obtained at the All Saints’ Chapter in Wittenberg (see p.
338, n. 8).

2 See Thesis 32. WA 1, 234; LW 31, 28.

3 See Thesis 27. WA 1, 234; LW 31, 27 f.

4 See Thesis 75. WA 1, 237; LW 31, 32. Tetzel denied having made such
a claim.

5 See Thesis 21. WA 1, 234; LW 31, 27.

6 See Thesis 80. WA 1, 237; LW 31, 32.

7 On the term “infusion of grace,” see pp. 156 ff., 367 ff.

8 Phil. 2:12-13.

»I Pet. 4:18.

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, OCTOBER 31, 1517

way that leads to life is so narrow 10 that the Lord, through the
prophets Amos 11 and Zechariah , 12 calls those that will be saved “a
brand plucked out of the fire.” And everywhere else the Lord
proclaims the difficulty of salvation. How can the [indulgence
agents] then make the people feel secure and without fear [con-
cerning salvation] by means of those false stories and promises
of pardon? After all, the indulgences contribute absolutely noth-
ing to the salvation and holiness of souls; they only compensate
for the external punishment which— on the basis of Canon Law—
once used to be imposed . 13

Works of piety and love are infinitely better than indul-
gences ; 14 and yet [the indulgence preachers] do not preach them
with an equally big display and effort. What is even worse, [the
preachers] are silent about them because they have to preach the
sale of the indulgences. The first and only duty of the bishops,
however, is to see that the people learn the gospel and the love
of Christ. For on no occasion has Christ ordered that indulgences
should be preached, but he forcefully commanded the gospel to be
preached. What a horror, what a danger for a bishop to permit
the loud noise of indulgences among his people, while the gospel
is silenced, and to be more concerned with the sale of indulgences
than with the gospell Will not Christ say to [such bishops], “You
strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”? 15

Added to all this, my Most Reverend Father in the Lord,
is the fact that in the Instruction 16 for the indulgence agents
which is published under Your Highness’ name, it is written
( certainly without your full awareness and consent. Most Reverend
Father ) 17 that one of the principal graces [bestowed through the
indulgences] is that inestimable gift of God by which man is re-
conciled with God and by which all the punishments of purgatory

10 Matt. 7:14.

11 Amos 4:11.

12 Zech. 3:2.

13 See Thesis 5. WA 1, 233; LW 31, 26.

14 See Thesis 43. WA 1, 235; LW 31, 29.

15 Matt. 23:24.

16 For the Archbishop’s Instruction, see Kidd, No. 6; St. L. 15, 301 ff.;
Bettenson, pp. 260 ff.

17 This statement should be compared with Luther’s letter of December 1,
1521, to the Archbishop; see pp. 339 ff.; see also pp. 326, 376 ff.

LETTERS

are blotted out . 18 It is also written there that contrition is not
necessary on the part of those who buy off their souls 19 or acquire
confessionalia. 20

What can I do, excellent Bishop and Most Illustrious Sov-
ereign? I can only beg you, Most Reverend Father, through the
Lord Jesus Christ, to deign to give this matter your fatherly at-
tention and totally withdraw that little book 21 and command the
preachers of indulgences to preach in another way. If this is not
done, someone may rise and, by means of publications, silence
those preachers and refute the litde book. This would be the
greatest disgrace for Your Most Illustrious Highness. I certainly
shudder at this possibility, yet I am afraid it will happen if things
are not quickly remedied.

I beg Your Most Illustrious Grace to accept this faithful
service of my humble self in a princely and episcopal— that is, in
the most kind— way, just as I am rendering it with a most honest
heart, and in absolute loyalty to you, Most Reverend Father.
For I, too, am a part of your flock. May the Lord Jesus protect
you, Most Reverend Father, forever. Amen.

From Wittenberg, October 31, 1517

Were it agreeable to you, Most Reverend Father, you could

18 The Instruction stated: “The first grace is the complete remission of
all sins; and nothing greater than this can be named, since sinful man,
deprived of the grace of God, obtains complete remission by these means
and once more enjoys God’s grace; moreover through this remission of sins
the punishment which one is obliged to undergo in purgatory on account of
the affront of the Divine Majesty is all remitted and the pains of purgatory
completely blotted out.” See Bettenson, p. 260; WA, Br 1, 113, n. 19.

19 The Instruction stated: “The fourth important grace is for those souk in
purgatory, and is the complete remission of all sins, which remission the pope
orings to pass through his intercession ... in this wise: that the same con-
tribution shall be placed in the chest by a living person as one would make
for himself. ... It is furthermore not necessary that the persons who place
their contributions in the chest for the dead should be contrite in heart and
have orally confessed. . . .” See Bettenson, pp. 262 f.; WA, Br 1, 113, n. 19.

20 Confessional letters. The Instruction stated: “The second principal grace
is a ‘confessional’ [confessional letter] replete with the greatest, most im-
portant, and hitherto unheard of privileges. . . See Bettenson, p. 261.
Among these privileges were the individual’s right to choose his own father
confessor (thus avoiding parochial discipline) and the power given to this
father confessor to forgive sins, even in cases usually reserved for the Holy See.

21 The Instruction; see note 16.

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, ABOUT NOVEMBER 6, 1517

examine my disputation theses , 22 so that you may see how dubious
is this belief concerning indulgences, which these preachers prop-
agate as if it were the surest thing in the whole world.

Your unworthy son,

Martin Luther
Augustinian,

called Doctor of Sacred Theology 28

To Elector Frederick
Wittenberg, about November 6, 1517

Luther is reminding the Elector of the promise to give him a new
cowl. He is also trying to remove an apparent misunderstanding
between the Elector and von Staupitz, and thus restore a good
relationship between the two men. In addition he advises against
a new tax.

Frederick the Wise (1463-1525; after 1486 one of the seven
electors of the Holy Roman Empire) was a member of the Ernestine
branch of the ruling family in Saxony and one of the most out-
standing and capable rulers of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century. He reorganized the government of his territory and
promoted the Reichsreform, which was intended to provide a new
order for the administration of the Empire. He was a pious man ,
who was more sincere in this regard than many of his contem-
poraries. Although he was quite thrifty, he was willing to spend

22 The Ninety-five Theses. WA 1, 233 ff.; LW 31, 25 ff. On the events of
October 31, 1517, in Wittenberg, see H. Volz, Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag
und dessen Vorgeschichte (Weimar, 1959); H. Bomkamm, “Der 31. Oktober
als Tag des Thesenanschlags,” Deutsches Pfarrerblatt , 61 (1961); E. Iserloh,
Luthers Thesenanschlag: Tatsache oder Legende? (Institut fiir Europaische
Geschichte in Mainz, Vortrage No. 31; Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1962).

23 Luther justified his attacks on the indulgences on the basis of his responsi-
bility as an officially called Doctor of Sacred Theology. During his graduation
as doctor (see p. 5) he had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Roman church
(see Schwiebert, p. 195), and, argued Luther, this oath compelled him to
speak. See also p. 6, n. 5; P. Steinlein, “Luthers Doktorat,” Neue kirchliche
Zeitschrift ( Luthertum ), XXIII (1912).

LETTERS

great sums of money to add to the collection of relics at the
Wittenberg Castle Church. In his attitude toward Luther , Elector
Frederick was guided by his piety, a responsible conscience, and
a feeling for justice ; contrary to the opinion of many scholars,
he was not influenced by political reasons (such as territorial
antagonism to the Emperor) or by any economic considerations
(such as confiscation of the property of churches that had gone
over to the evangelical party). He supported Luther in a careful
yet effective way, and on the basis of his key role in Imperial
politics he was in a very good position to protect the Reformer.
Elector Frederick deliberated over every move he made, but once
he had come to a decision, he proceeded with determination.
He was probably the last of the men around Luther (whom, in -
cidentally , he apparently never met, and with whom he usually
communicated through Spalatin) to gain an insight into and under-
standing of the Reformers thought. Finally in his dying hour he
publicly professed his adherence to the Reformation by receiving
the Lords Supper with bread and wine. This was the deed of
a man who was slow to decide and act, but once convinced of
the right of what he undertook, was willing to assume full respon-
sibility for his action. See O.D.C.C., p. 526.

Text in German : WA, Br 1, 119-120.

To my most gracious and dear Lord, Duke Frederick,
elector of Saxony

To His Grace: Personal

Jesus 1

Most Gracious Lord and Sovereign: Since Your Grace promised
me a new cowl a year ago, as Hirschfeld 2 told me, I now come
and ask Your Grace to remember this promise. 3 I beg, however,
gracious Lord, if Pfeffinger 4 is again to make the arrangements,

1 This word is written in Latin.

2 Bernhard von Hirschfeld; see p. 33, n. 2.

8 It seems that on December 14, 1516, Luther had somewhat prematurely
expressed his gratitude for the cowl; see p. 33; p. 121, n. 5.

4 Deginhard Pfeffinger; see p. 32, n. 28.

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, ABOUT NOVEMBER 6, 1517

that he do so now in deed and not just with a friendly promise.
He is very good at spinning fine words, but these do not produce
good cloth.

Most Gracious Lord, I have been told by the prior at Erfurt 5 6
(who had learned of it from Your Grace’s father confessor ) 6 that
Your Grace is annoyed at Doctor Staupitz, our esteemed and dear
father, because of a certain letter . 7 Therefore when [Doctor
Staupitz] was here and sought Your Grace at Torgau , 8 I talked to
His Honor and declared that I would not like to see Your Grace’s
displeasure come upon His Honor. Truthfully, from the long con-
versation in which we discussed Your Grace all evening, I found
out nothing else than that he has Your Grace in his inmost heart,
that the Elector of Saxony is his dear sovereign, and that he is
more than well disposed toward Your Grace. This was so much
the case that he finally stated: I do not know how I have ever
provoked my Most Gracious Lord, unless it be that I held His
Grace in too high a regard(I). Therefore, Most Gracious Lord,
I plead on his behalf— as he has suggested to me several times—
that Your Grace continue to favor and to be loyal to him, just
as Your Grace has undoubtedly experienced his loyalty many times.

Most Gracious Lord, that I too may show my faithfulness
toward Your Grace, and may earn my courtly cowl, let me add
the following: I have heard that Your Grace plans, at the end of
this tax period, to impose another and perhaps even heavier tax . 9
If Your Grace will not scorn the plea of a poor beggar, I beg that
for the sake of God you will not let it come to that. I and many
others who mean well with Your Grace are sincerely sorry that
even the last taxation has reduced Your Grace’s reputation, name,
and good will. Of course God has provided Your Grace with so
much intelligence that sees further in such things than I, or maybe
all of Your Grace’s subjects. But it may well be, indeed, God
wills it so, that even great wisdom sometimes be guided by the

5 John Lang; see p. 14.

6 James Vogt; see p. 33, n. 5.

7 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1. This letter is not available.

8 Von Staupitz, who stayed in Niimberg at that time, must have traveled to
the Electoral residence in Torgau in an attempt to clarify this matter; he must
have been unable to do so; see WA, Br 1, 116.

9 This was another tax on beverages; see WA, Br 1, No. 51, Introduction.

LETTERS

lesser, so that no one may depend upon himself but only upon
God, our Lord. May he preserve Your Grace in good health for
our benefit, and thereafter Your Grace's soul to salvation. Amen.

Your Grace s dedicated priest,
Doctor Martin Luder 10
at Wittenberg

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, January 18, 1518

Luther answers Spalatins question concerning the best way of
studying Scripture. As he expresses his opinion of Erasmian
hermeneutics Luther develops and states his own exegetical and
hermeneutical rules.

See pp. 23 ff. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br I, 133-134.

To my honest friend George Spalatin,
truly a disciple of Christ and a brother, etc.

Jesus

Greetings. Excellent Spalatin: You have previously asked me
questions that were within my power— or at least my temerity—
to answer; but now, when you demand to be directed in those
things which pertain to a thorough knowledge of Scripture, you
require something far beyond the limit of my abilities, especially
as I have not been able to find a guide for myself in this matter.

Certainly different men think differently on this subject; even
the most learned and gifted do not agree. You have Erasmus,
who plainly asserts that blessed Jerome is such a great theologian
in the church that he alone deserves to be considered. If I should
place blessed Augustine over against him, I would seem to be

10 See p. 17, n. 6.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 18, 1518

quite a biased and unreliable judge, not only because I am a
member of the Augustinian Order 1 but also on account of the
widespread and long-accepted opinion of Erasmus that it would
be impudent even to compare Augustine with Jerome . 2 Still other
men have other opinions. Among such famous judges I would not
venture to decide anything concerning these weighty matters on
account of the limitation in my learning and gifts. But in the
face of all who either passionately hate or slothfully neglect good
learning— and that is before all men— I always give Erasmus the
highest praise and defend him as much as I can; I am very careful
not to air my disagreements with him lest by chance I too would
confirm [his enemies] in their hatred of him. Yet, if I have to
speak as a theologian rather than as a philologian, there are many
thin gs in Erasmus which seem to me to be completely incongruous
with a knowledge of Christ. Otherwise there is no man more
learned or ingenious than he, not even Jerome, whom he extols
so much. Now if you should disclose my opinion of Erasmus to
someone else, you will have violated the principles of friendship.
I am not warning you without good reason. There are many, as
you know, who are eager to find an occasion to slander good
learning. Therefore let what I have told you remain a secret . 3
Of course do not accept my judgment until you yourself have
established it by [your own] reading. Yet if you insist on learning
my method of studying [Scripture], I shall of course hide nothing
from you as my closest friend, but only on the condition that you
will not follow me without discretion.

To begin with, it is absolutely certain that one cannot enter
into the [meaning of] Scripture by study or innate intelligence.
Therefore your first task is to begin with prayer. You must ask
that the Lord in his great mercy grant you a true understanding
of his words, should it please him to accomplish anything through

1 See p. 24.

2 In previous months Luther must have carefully studied Erasmus’ introduc-
tion to the works of St. Jerome; see p. 18, n. 7. In this introduction, as well
as in his edition of the New Testament (see p. 23), Erasmus expressed his
preference for St. Jerome. See Allen 2, 326, 396; 3, 844.

8 See pp. 40, 184 f. Luther was caught between his admiration for the
linguistic ability of Erasmus and his criticism of the theological views of the
great Humanist. Were he publicly to attack the latter, Luther feared he
would lend support to the Scholastic opponents of Humanistic studies.

LETTERS

you for his glory and not for your glory or that of any other man.
For there is no one who can teach the divine words except he who
is their author, as he says, “They shall all be taught by God .” 4
You must therefore completely despair of your own diligence and
intelligence and rely solely on the infusion of the Spirit. Believe
me, for I have had experience in this matter.

Then having achieved this despairing humility, read [the books
of] the Bible in order from beginning to end, so that you first
get the simple story in your mind (as I believe you have already
done long since). Blessed Jerome, in his letters and commentaries,
will be of great help to you in this . 5 But for an understanding
of Christ and the grace of God (that is, for the more hidden
understanding which is given by the Spirit), Augustine and
Ambrose seem to me to be far better guides, especially because
it appears to me that blessed Jerome “Origenizes” (that is, alle-
gorizes ) 6 too much. I say this aside from the judgment of
Erasmus— but you asked for my opinion and not for his.

If you like my course of study, begin by reading Augustine’s
On the Spirit and the Letter, which our Karlstadt, a man of in-
comparable zeal, has now edited and explained with remarkable
annotations . 7 Then take the book Against Julian and likewise the
book Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians . 8 Add blessed
Ambrose’s work on the calling of all heathen, although this book
appears from its style, character, and chronology to have been
written by someone other than Ambrose; it is, nevertheless, a

4 John 6:45.

5 See pp. 17, 24 f., 40.

6 “Origenizes” refers to Origen ( d. a.d. 253? ) , a great biblical scholar of the
early church who developed the allegorical method of biblical exegesis. Cor-
responding to the human body, soul, and spirit, he recognized a literal, moral,
and allegorical sense of a text, of which he preferred the last; see O.D.C.C.,
pp. 36 f., 992 f.; Patrology, pp. 226 f., 231 f.

7 In the spring of 1518 Andrew Karlstadt (see p. 79, n. 12) published St
Augustine’s De spiritu et litera (On the Spirit and the Letter ); modem edi-
tion: E. Kahler (ed.), Karlstadt und Augustin. Der Kommentar des Andreas
Bodenstein von Karlstadt zu Augustins Schrift De Spiritu et Litera (Hallische
Monographien 19 [Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1952]). This treatise
(see Patrology, p. 508), already mentioned by Luther in October, 1516 (see
p. 25, n. 13), was important for Luther and for the development of the Theo-
logical Facility of the University of Wittenberg; see Schwiebert, pp. 293 ff.;
Fife, pp. 203 ff.

8 On these writings of St. Augustine, see p. 24, nn. 2, 3.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 18, 1518

very learned book. 9 If these suggestions appeal to you, I shall
send you more later on. Forgive my temerity that in such a diffi-
cult subject I dare to set forth my ideas over and above those
of such famous men.

In closing I shall say nothing on Erasmus’ Defense, 10 but I
am very sorry that such a conflict should have broken out between
these great princes of learning. Erasmus is certainly by far the
superior of the two, and he is a greater master of language. How-
ever he is also more violent, though he makes a great effort to
preserve friendship.

Farewell, my Spalatin.

From our monastery , January 18, 1518, the day on which
you had sent your letter 11

Friar Martin Eijejutherius 12

Father Staupitz 13 is staying in Munich, Bavaria, from where
he has recently sent me a letter.

Q De vocatione omnium gentium (On the Call of All the Heathen). MPL
17, 1167 ff. St. Ambrose's authorship of this work is indeed a controversial
matter; see Patrology , p. 536.

10 Erasmus and Lefevre d’Etaples (Faber Stapulensis; see p. 26, n. 15) were
engaged in a sharp controversy over Heb. 2:7. Luther is referring to Erasmus*
Defense against Lefevre d’Etaples: Apologia ad Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem
(Louvain: D. Martens, 1517). Clericus 9, 17 ff.

11 Spalatin must have been in Wittenberg for his letter to have reached
Luther the same day; this letter is not extant.

12 After October 31, 1517, Luther occasionally signed his letters “Eleutherius.”
Among Humanists the custom of turning one’s name into Latin or Greek on
the basis of either meaning or sound was prevalent. For instance, Melanch-
thon’s (see p. 77, n. 3) name was originally Schwarzerd, which means
black earth. Luther derived “Eleutherius” from the Greek word for
"free.” Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate that he was now— after
nailing the Ninety-five Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Witten-
berg— a free man; he had liberated himself from the nonbiblical understanding
of penance and had become a free man in Christ, no longer enslaved by
human institutions (such as indulgences) but subject only to Christ. This
supposition seems to be corroborated by the fact that Luther signed a letter
to Lang (November 11, 1517; the covering letter for the Ninety-five Theses ):
“Friar Martin Eleutherius, or rather a slave and very much a captive.” See
WA, Br 1, 122.

13 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1; this letter is not extant.

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, February 22, 1518

Luther mentions his fear that the controversy on indulgences
stirred up hy his Ninety-five Theses may cause hostility between
the Elector of Brandenburg and the Elector of Saxony . In answer
to certain questions Luther denies the usefulness of dialectic for
the work of a biblical theologian .

See pp. 37 f. On Spalatin , see pp . 8 f .

Text in Latin: WA> Br 1, 149-150.

To my friend George Spalatin, a servant of Christ
and secretary to the Elector 1

Jesus

Greetings. I am not distressed, excellent Spalatin, that [my
enemies] are speaking so badly of me, or that they stamp our
Elector as the author of my theses. 2 I fear only that this affair
might create hostility between our great rulers, should perhaps
the Sovereign of Brandenburg, 8 out of vengeance, permit some-
thing similar to happen as we have recently heard about Schencke , 4
Moreover you ask to what extent I (!) consider dialectic 5
useful for a theologian. Honestly, I do not see how dialectic would

1 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

2 The Ninety-five Theses; see p. 49, n. 22.

3 Elector Joachim I of Brandenburg (1499-1535) was a brother of Albrecht
of Mainz (see pp. 44 f. ) and a bitter foe of Luther (see pp. 217, 220).

4 This word is written in German. Luther might have been referring to the
fate of a certain knight who had turned to robbery and was captured and
decapitated. Luthers remark is far from clear; see WA, Br 1, 150, n. 2.

5 Dialectic was one of the seven liberal arts taught during the Middle Ages.
Consisting of the art and practice of discussion, it is logic which examines
the truth of a theory by investigating its premises and consequences. It is
concerned with the meaning of words, with definitions, with the logical organi-
zation of statements, and with their implications for philosophy and theology.
In the dialectic process of thought, contradictory statements about the same
object are reduced to absurdity and thus shown to be logically untenable;
truth is held to be established by arriving at a statement which can no longer
be logically opposed. The dialectic process of thought could also lead to a
syllogism, a conclusion logically drawn from a major and a minor premise.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, FEBRUARY 22, 1518

not be rather harmful for a true theologian. Maybe it could be
play and exercise useful for the minds of youngsters, but in Bible
study, where only faith and enlightenment from above are desired,
all syllogism has to be left behind; this does not differ from
Abraham's leaving his servants behind with the asses when he set
out to sacrifice . 6 John Reuchlin affirms this sufficiently in the
second book of his Cabala . 7 If any dialectic is necessary, then
the inborn, instinctive one will suffice. By this, man is enabled
to compare objects of faith with one another and thus to draw
true conclusions. I have often discussed with friends what might
be the advantage of all this painful study of philosophy and dia-
lectic. All of us were certainly astonished, indeed, we bewailed
the state of our minds. We found no usefulness but a flood of
harm [in these studies].

Regarding this problem, I have finally written to the gentle-
man from Eisenach , 8 9 who seems to be king of dialectic philosophers
in our day. I mainly argued that— and this cannot be denied—
dialectic, instead of being useful to theology, is rather an obstacle
to theological studies, because theology uses the same vocabulary
in a manner quite different from that of dialectic. In what way
therefore, I asked, can dialectic be of use, since once I begin to
study theology I am forced to reject the dialectic meaning of a
word and have to accept its [theological] meaning ? 0 In order
that I might not be just juggling with words, I added some
examples, as, for instance, the following: in the Porphyrian Tree 10

6 Gen. 22:5*

7 Here Luther gives a general reference to the second book of De arte cabba -
listica, Libri tres ( Three Books on the Cabala) by John Reuchlin (Hagenau:
T. Anshelm, 1517). On John Reuchlin, see p. 9. On the Cabala, see
O.D.C.C., pp. 213, 1159.

8 Jodocus Trutvetter; see p. 12, n. 3. This letter is not extant. It can be
assumed, however, that it was similar in content to the letter mentioned on
p. 37.

9 In the medieval university, dialectic was studied before theology, for which
it was intended to serve as a tool.

10 Arbor Porphuriana (The Porphyrian Tree) is the name given to a list of
categories Porphyry (see p. 37, n. 4) furnished in his Eisagoge eis tas Arts -
totelous kategorias (Introduction to Aristotle* s Categories ); see A. Busse (ed.),
PorphyrU Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categories Commentaria (Commentaria in
Aristotelem Graeca 4, I [Berlin: Akademieverlag, 1887]). In the Middle
Ages, Boethius’ Latin translation and commentary on Porphyry’s Introduction
was the most widely used textbook on logic; early edition: Boethius Opera

LETTERS

the word “body” means something which consists of “matter” and
“form .” 11 But such a body cannot be attributed to man, because
in Scripture our “body” only stands for the “matter” and does
not include the “form.” For example, “Do not fear those who kill
the body but cannot kill the soul .” 12 I mentioned further that it
is absurd to state that an angel is neither a rational nor an ir-
rational being ; 13 and also that regarding [the understanding] of
Scripture, it would be useless to define man as being “sensitive,”
“rational,” “corporeal,” [and] “animate.” 14 In short I said, and I

ommnia (Venice: Joannes and Gregorius de Gregoriis, 1483; 2nd ed. 1497-
1499 ) ; modern edition in Corpus script or urn ecclesiasticorum latinorum XXXX-
VUI.

11 See Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum XXXXVUI, 206, 1 f., 267,
3 f .

12 Matt. 10:28. Aristotle and medieval thinkers used the term “eidos” or
“forma” (“form”) to describe the unchanging element which specifies matter
as a thin g and gives it its specific character and being. According to Thomistic
teaching, approved by the Council of Vienne in 1312 and the Fifth Lateran
Council in 1513, the soul is the form of the human body which gives it
human existence; see O.D.C.C., p. 513. Luther feels that it is impossible to
speak of the “body” as consisting of “matter” and “form,” since the term
“body” would then have to include the notion of “soul.” This, Luther claims,
would be against Scripture as seen in the example he takes from Matt. 10:28,
in which “body” and “soul” are designated as two separate “entities.” There-
fore, Luther concludes on the basis of Scripture, Porphyry’s definition of the
term “body” (which is based on Aristotelian thought) must be rejected. Here
Luther confused the definition of the term “body” as given by Porphyry in his
Introduction with that given by Porphyry's translator and commentator
Boethius (see note 10). Porphyry defined man as consisting of matter and
form (see Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum XXXXVUI, 265, 13-
20), a statement to which Luther certainly would not have objected. In his
commentary on Porphyry’s Introduction, Boethius explained Porphyry’s defini-
tion in statements which, if considered apart from their context, might furnish
the basis for Luther's criticism; see Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum loti-
norum XXXXVUI, 265, 13-275, 2.

13 Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum XXXXVUI, 269-271. In
Thomistic Scholasticism the term “rationalis” (“rational”) referred to the
deductive process of thought by which knowledge of truth is acquired. “Ir-
rational” on the other hand designated the inability to obtain truth at all or
to express it logically. Since angels, like God, apprehend truth intuitively
( intellectualis ) their perception of truth cannot be called rational but only
“intuitive.” See L. Schiitz, Thomas Lexicon (2nd ed.; Paderbom, 1895):
“ intellectualis ” “ rationalis .” Luther rejects the notion that angels' perception
of truth is not rational (in the said way) and that angels are irrational beings,
and states that their perception of truth has to be called intellectualis. Luther,
however, does not give his own understanding or the scriptural basis for his
argument.

14 “Sensitive”: capable of sense perception, receiving impressions through the
senses. See L. Schiitz, op. cit. : “ sensitivus .” This definition seems to be a

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, FEBRUARY 22, 1518

still maintain, that the whole fiction of the Porphyrian Tree is
nothing less than tales of old women, or dreams of the sick; it
is rightly called “porphyrian ” 15 (that is, “bloodthirsty”) because
of the Christian souls it would murder. Finally I tore to pieces
the categories 16 and some other subjects in philosophy and
theology. The man didn’t like this at all, and maintained that
my arguments were not convincing 17 and I myself should not
regard them as such. Yet these people are captives of Aristotle
and Porphyry , 18 and pay attention not to what [these philosophers]
say, but to the fact that they say something. That is the reason
they cannot catch on to the meaning of even a single chapter
of Scripture, much less teach it. Therefore if you trust my judg-
ment, let dialectic be of use to you wherever it can; in Bible
study, however, it will only do harm. I used to practice the teach-
ings and rules of Scholastic theology . 19 By all means I wanted to
handle Holy Scripture according to these rules. I was afraid (may
God destroy me if I lie! ) more of the Fathers of the church than
of the terrors of hell. At that time I saw what good such studies
had done! When you visit me sometime, I shall test this further
with you and make you see for yourself what you now only hear.
Farewell, and pray for me.

Wittenberg , February 22, 1518

Friar Martin Eleutherius
Augustinian

reference to Porphyry's definition of man given in his Introduction (see note

10 ).

15 Porphyreos , or ‘‘purple,” is a Greek word used by Homer to describe
blood and death.

16 Categories are the fundamental conceptions to which all knowledge can
be reduced. The Greek philosopher Archytas (4th century b.c.) classified
them in ten topics; this classification was adopted by Aristotle and handed
down to the Middle Ages by Porphyry and Boethius (see note 10). In the
medieval curriculum the categories were basic to the study of dialectic.

17 Literally: “Achillean,” like the powerful Greek hero in the Trojan war; see
O.C.D., pp. 3 f.

18 For similar statements, see pp. 37 f.

19 As an undergraduate at the University of Erfurt and later as a theological
student and lecturer both in Erfurt and Wittenberg (see p. 5), Luther
pursued his studies in the Nominalistic school of Scholasticism and became a
follower of the via modema (see p. 96, n. 8; O.D.C.C., pp. 962 f.). He
concentrated on the philosophy and theology of William of Occam (see
O.D.C.C., pp. 1462 f.) and the late medieval schoolmen; he studied the
works of Pierre d’Ailly (see O.D.C.C., pp. 368 f. ) and of Gabriel Biel (see

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, May 18, 1518

As a district vicar, Luther was expected to attend the triennial
chapter meeting of his Order, scheduled to open April 25 in
Heidelberg. Luther was in charge of a disputation to be conducted
at this meeting, in which he was to present the theses and over
which he was to preside. His Wittenberg student, Leonard Beier,
a fellow Augustinian (see p. 39, n. 4), was to defend the theses.
Like Luthers theses against Scholastic theology, which had been
debated in Wittenberg on September 4, 1517 (see WA 1, 224 ff.;
LW 31, 9 ff.), these “Heidelberg Theses ” (see WA 1, 353 ff.; LW
31, 39 ff.) dealt with mans inability to know and to do by his
own power God's will.

This letter is Luthers report on the meeting in Heidelberg.
In addition Luther expresses his concern for establishing professor-
ships in Greek and Hebrew at the University of Wittenberg .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 173-174.

To my most learned and kind friend Spalatin

Jesus

Greetings. At last, my Spalatin, by the grace of Christ I have
returned to our hearth . 1 I arrived at Wittenberg on the Saturday
after Ascension Day . 2 I, who left on foot, returned by wagon. My
superiors made me ride almost up to Wurzburg with the dele-
gation from Niimberg. From there I traveled with the Erfurt
delegation and from Erfurt on, with the party from Eisleben; and
they finally brought me, both at their own expense and with their

p. 65, n. 3), the two most outstanding theologians of the via modema in
the later Middle Ages. In later years Luther stated that he was an Occamist;
see WA 6, 195. These studies in Scholasticism were, however, replaced by
those in St. Augustine, the mystics, and the Bible.

1 Literally: “to our penates,” i.e., the Roman gods of the hearth.

2 May 15, 1518.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 18, 1518

horses, to Wittenberg. I certainly have been quite safe during
the whole trip. Food and drink agreed wonderfully with me, so
much so that several people think I have become more settled and
slightly more rotund. The Most Illustrious Sovereign Wolfgang , 8
the count palatine, and Master James Simler gave me an out-
standing reception; so did Hazius, the master of the court . 4 He
invited us, that is, the Father Vicar Staupitz 5 and our friend
Lang, who is now vicar of the district 6 [and me]; we enjoyed
ourselves in pleasant and delightful conversation while we dined
and wined. We viewed all the treasures of the castle chapel , 7
and saw the armory, and just about every precious object with
which this truly royal and extraordinarily famous castle sparkles.
Master James [Simler] could not praise highly enough the letter
our Sovereign had written in my behalf; 8 he said, in his Neckar
dialect, "By God, you have excellent credentials !” 9 I was given
every possible courtesy.

The doctors 10 willingly allowed my disputation 11 and debated
with me in such a fair way that they have my highest esteem.
Theology seemed to be some strange thing to them; nevertheless
they fought it keenly and with finesse. There was one exception:
he was the fifth doctor [who spoke] and a junior in rank . 12 He
aroused the laughter of the whole audience by saying, “If farmers
would hear this, they would certainly stone you to death.” My

3 Count Palatine Wolfgang (1494-1558); he had studied in the summer of
1515 at the University of Wittenberg; see WA, Br 1, 174, n. 2.

4 James Simler was a former tutor and traveling companion of Count Wolf-
gang; Hazius is unknown if one does not assume— with WA, Br 1, 174, n. 4—
that he is the future Chancellor Heinrich Hase.

5 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

6 John Lang; see p. 14. Luther’s own term in this office (see p. 14) had
expired; according to the bylaws of the Rule (see p. 20, n. 3), a district vicar
could not be re-elected right away. In addition through his Ninety-five
Theses Luther had become a controversial figure in the Order. Therefore it
seemed wise not to elect him to any other high administrative office.

7 Among them was said to be a splinter from Christ's cross and a small piece
of his robe.

8 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f. Because Luther was a controversial figure,
Spalatin had provided him with several official letters commending Luther to
the magistrates and rulers of the territories in which he would be.

9 The quotation is written in colloquial German.

10 The doctors of the Theological Faculty of the University in Heidelberg.

11 See the Introduction.

12 A certain George Niger, who had recently acquired the doctor's degree;
therefore Luther calls him “junior." See WA, Br 1, 174, n. 8.

LETTERS

theology is like rotten food to the people from Erfurt. 18 Especially
the Doctor from Eisenach 14 has condemned 15 all my statements;
he has written me a letter 16 in which he has accused me of being
an ignoramus in dialectic, not to speak of theology. I would have
held a disputation at Erfurt, too, had the May prayer days 17 not
interfered with it. Nevertheless I did have a face-to-face con-
ference with the Doctor from Eisenach. 18 I was at least able to
make him realize that he could neither substantiate his position
nor refute mine; on the contrary, his propositions were like that
beast which is supposed to have devoured itself. 19 But it is vain
to tell a story to someone who is deaf. 20 They obstinately cling
to their neat little distinctions, even when they confess that these
are confirmed by no other authority than what they call the
wisdom of natural reason, which for us is the same as the abyss
of darkness. We preach no other light than Jesus . Christ, the true
and only light. I worked harder with Doctor Usingen 21 than
with anyone else in order to persuade him (for he was my
traveling companion in the wagon). But I don’t know if I ac-

13 Literally: “. . . is twice-deadly cabbage”; this is a Greek idiomatic saying,
recorded in Erasmus' Adagia; see Clericus 2, 196, E f. Luther's attack against
the Scholastic approach in theology and his denial that man can take any
initiative in the process of salvation seemed to his former teachers, fellow
students, and some of the Augustinians of Erfurt to be an utter rejection of
the training he had received in their midst.

14 Jodocus Trutvetter; see p. 12, n. 3.

15 Literally: ". . . marked all my statements with a black theta ,” that is,
the eighth letter in the Greek alphabet, usually transcribed as “th.” If during a
trial in Athens someone voted for death, he engraved a theta on his voting
tablet, since the Greek word for death ( thanatos ) begins with this letter.
See Erasmus' Adagia. Clericus 2, 203, E f.

16 This letter is not available; it must have been an answer to Luther's letter
mentioned on p. 37; or it was Trutvetter's communication mentioned on p. 59.

17 The three days of prayer and abstinence preceding the Feast of Ascension;
they begin with Rogate Sunday which in 1518 fell on May 9; see WA, Br 1,
175, n. 11.

18 On his return trip Luther had tried in vain to visit with Trutvetter on
the evening of May 8; as a result he wrote WA, Br 1, No. 74, explaining why
he wanted to see Trutvetter. It could not be determined when the conference
to which Luther is referring took place; on the basis of Luther's remark here,
and another one in a letter of July 10, 1518 (see WA, Br 1, 186), it can
be assumed that Luther had been able to see Trutvetter after all.

19 Perhaps an allusion to Revelation 17.

20 An allusion to a classical saying which is recorded in Erasmus’ Adagia; see
Clericus 2, 178, C.

21 Bartholomew Amoldi of Usingen; see p. 30, n. 18.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 18, 1518

complished anything. I left him pensive and wandering. How
terrible, to grow old in false suppositions! On the other hand the
thinking of the young men— in fact, of all youth— differs by two
whole octaves 22 from the old. I have great hope that as Christ
went over to the Gentiles when he was rejected by the Jews, so
now too his true theology (which those opinionated old men
reject) may pass over to the younger generation. This much con-
cerning me.

Finally I hope and ask of you not to forget our University;
that is, that you be concerned for the establishment of a chair in
Greek and a chair in Hebrew . 23 I believe you have seen the
announcement of the University of Leipzig; as usual, they imitate
us. In the announcement they brag of many lectures; but I do
not believe they all will be held . 24 I couldn’t possibly direct the
letter to the Most Illustrious ruling Bishop at Naumburg 25 by a
person more appropriate than you. Therefore please do what your
best friends ask of you.

Farewell in the Lord.

From our monastery. May 18, 1518

Friar Martin Eleutherius 26

Augustinian

22 A classical saying indicating an enormous gulf between two things.
Luther’s source of this expression is, again, Erasmus’ Adazia; see Clericus
2, 94, F f.

23 See p. 37, n. 6; p. 41; p. 96, n. 8. Luther was deeply concerned that these
chairs be established and filled with excellently qualified men. Melanchthon
( see p. 77, n. 3 ) was one of the professors who was called as a result of this
plea; he took the Chair of Greek. On the professor of Hebrew, see p. 123,
n. 4.

24 At the beginning of the sixteenth century, strong rivalry existed between
the University of Leipzig and the University of Wittenberg. Leipzig Uni-
versity had been founded at the beginning of the fifteenth century in a
geographic as well as industrial and cultural center and was proud of its
large student body and famous faculty. It looked down on provincial Witten-
berg and the University founded there in 1502. Between 1516 and 1521,
this situation developed into open hostility on the part of Leipzig when
Wittenberg suddenly became famous for its Humanistically-oriented cur-
riculum (see p. 41) which attracted an increasing number of students. But
the tensions were religious as well as academic: until 1539 the University
of Leipzig sided officially with the Roman church and did everything to
undermine Wittenberg’s stature. See also p. 78; p. 134, n. 3; pp. 138, 149,
160, 164.

25 Count Palatine Philip; the letter is not extant.

26 See p. 55, n. 12.

LETTERS

To John von Staupitz 1
Wittenberg, May 30, 1518

Luthers 'Ninety-jive Theses against indulgences were originally
intended as the basis for an academic disputation which, however,
never took place . When Luther realized how widely they had
been spread and how they were interpreted, he decided to publish
explanations of these theses to clarify their purpose and sub-
stantiate them with detailed material. After some difficulty he
was finally granted permission to do this by his bishop Jerome
Sculteus of Brandenburg, who was also the ecclesiastical superior
of the University of Wittenberg. Luthers Explanations of the
Theses Concerning the Value of Indulgences (see WA 1, 530 ffi;
LW 31, 83 ffi) was an appeal to Pope Leo X (to whom Luther
dedicated it in a special letter) to look into the indulgence matter
and was intended to serve as Luthers defense against the attacks
of his opponents.

This letter— the covering letter for the Explanations, requesting
von Staupitz to forward both documents (the Explanations and the

1 John von Staupitz, a member of an old Saxon aristocratic family, had
already earned his Master of Arts degree when he entered the Augustinian
monastery of Tubingen in 1497. In 1500 he received his Doctorate in
Biblical Theology from the University of Tubingen, and in 1503 he was
elected vicar general of the German Congregation of Reformed Augustinians
(see p. 6, n. 3). He assisted Elector Frederick in organizing the University
of Wittenberg and brought many of the teachers the new faculty required;
he himself took over the Chair of Biblical Theology. It is generally assumed
that von Staupitz met Luther in the Wittenberg monastery in 1508 or 1509
(see p. 5). Over the years the Vicar General became Luther's spiritual
confidant and exercised great influence on him; this can especially be seen
in this letter. Because of his time-consuming responsibilities within the
Order, von Staupitz resigned his professorship in 1512, designating Luther
as his successor. Although he stood by Luther during the early stages of the
trial for heresy (see p. 86), he was unable to follow him all the way, and
after 1519 he and Luther became estranged. Nevertheless the Reformer
retained a deep gratitude and admiration for his former superior. In 1520
von Staupitz resigned as vicar general of the Augustinians because the Order
had become so heavily infiltrated by Reformation followers and became an
abbot of a Benedictine monastery (see WA, Br 2, 567; S-J 2, 129). By this
step he affirmed his strong feeling for the traditions in which he was nurtured.
However his deep and warm concern for the revival of an evangelical piety
and his opposition to the secularized ways of the Roman church made him
highly suspect in the eyes of the Inquisition. He died a lonely man in 1524.

TO JOHN VON STAUPITZ, MAY 30, 1518

letter of dedication) to Rome— gives a detailed account of the
development of Luthers understanding of penitence, which led
him finally to the attack on indulgences . Luther also gratefully
acknowledges the help von Staupitz extended to him in his struggles
for the biblical understanding of penitence .

On Luthe/s difficulties with the penitential system of his day,
see Bainton, pp. 54 ffi

Text in Latin: WA 1, 525-527.

To my reverend and true father, John Staupitz,

Professor of Sacred Theology, vicar of the Augustinian Order,
Friar Martin Luther, your pupil, sends greetings and
dedicates himself

Reverend Father: I remember that during your most delightful
and helpful talks, through which the Lord Jesus wonderfully con-
soled me, you sometimes mentioned the term K poenitentia." 2 I
was then distressed by my conscience and by the tortures of those
who through endless and insupportable precepts teach the so-
called method of confession. Therefore I accepted you as a mes-
senger from heaven when you said that poenitentia is genuine
only if it begins with love for justice and for God and that what
they consider to be the final stage and completion 3 is in reality
rather the very beginning of poenitentia .

2 Poenitentia means either the remorse of the sinner or the penance imposed
on the sinner by the church. The penitential system of the early and medieval
church (see pp. 43 f.) fused both meanings in the term “do penance” (which
meant both a contrite heart on the part of the sinner and his fulfilling of
satisfactions), basing this on the translation of Matt. 3:2 in the Vulgate (see
note 15). See O.D.C.C., pp. 1041, 1154. Luther's desperation in the monas-
tery was partially caused by this understanding of poenitentia: on the one
hand he realized that he could never completely atone for his sins, despite
his constant desperate struggle to do his penance properly; on the other hand
he knew that without poenitentia no man could stand before God free of
guilt.

3 So taught, e.g., Gabriel Biel ( 1420P-1495; see p. 59, n. 19; O.D.C.C., p. 172),
one of the Nominalistic theologians whose works Luther had studied. Ac-
cording to Biel, man constantly fears to transgress God's holy will and to
become guilty and the object of God's wrath. This servile fear has to be
transformed into love for God, if the sinner is to be absolved. Man should
be able to attain such love by an intense training of his mind and will and
by keeping God’s commandments. Ostensibly this would create a truly

LETTERS

Your word pierced me like the sharp arrow of the Mighty . 4
As a result, I began to compare your statements with the passages
of Scripture which speak of poenitentia. And behold— what a most
pleasant scenel Biblical words came leaping toward me from all
sides, clearly smiling and nodding assent to your statement. They
so supported your opinion that while formerly almost no word
in the whole Scripture was more bitter to me than poenitentia
(although I zealously made a pretense before God and tried to
express a feigned and constrained love for him), now no word
sounds sweeter or more pleasant to me than poenitentia. The
commandments of God become sweet when they are read not
only in books but also in the wounds of the sweetest Savior . 5

After this it happened that I learned— thanks to the work and
talent of the most learned men who teach us Greek and Hebrew
with such great devotion 6 — that the word poenitentia means
metanoia in Greek ; 7 it is derived from meta and noun , that is,
from “afterward ” 8 and “mind.” Poenitentia or metanoia , there-
fore, means coming to one’s right mind and a comprehension of
one’s own evil after one has accepted the damage and recognized
the error . 9 This is impossible without a change in one’s disposi-

contrite heart, thus completing poenitentia ; see R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der
Dogmengeschichte (4th ed.; Leipzig: Verlag A. Deichert, 1933), III, 538 f.
Under the influence of von Staupitz, Luther learned that poenitentia begins
with love for God, that is, with a heart turned to God. He also learned that
a heart may be brought to this love (that is, to repent) only by the God
of grace and love who reveals himself in Jesus Christ (therefore Luther’s
reference to Christ’s wounds at the end of the following paragraph), and
not by servile fear of breaking the commandments and thus becoming guilty
and deserving God’s wrath. When this change in the understanding of
poenitentia took place in Luther’s life is highly controversial and is assumed
by various scholars to have been sometime between 1508 and 1517. As a
result the individual stages of development in this change, described by
Luther in this letter, cannot be pinpointed.

4Ps. 120:4.

5 For similar statements, see WA, TR 2, Nos. 1490, 1820, 2654 a.

6 Luther is thinking mainly of Erasmus, who published the Greek text of the
New Testament with notes in 1516 (see p. 23).

7 Luther transliterates the Greek word metanoia in various ways, for instance:
metanoea, metanea, or metania.

8 Meta does not only mean “afterward,” but it is also a prefix indicating
change or transition, or movement from one place or state to another; see
the following paragraph.

9 Here Luther is apparently drawing on the explanation of the Greek word
metanoeite, “repent,* given by Erasmus in the Annotations to Matt. 3:2 in
the 1516 edition of the Greek text of the New Testament (see note 6).

TO JOHN VON STAUPITZ, MAY 30, 1518

tion and [the object of ones] love. All these definitions agree so
well with Pauline theology that, at least in my opinion, almost
nothing could illustrate Pauls theology better than the way
they do.

Then I progressed further and saw that metanoia could be
understood as a composite not only of “afterward” and “mind,”
but also of the [prefix] “trans” and “mind” (although this may of
course be a forced interpretation), so that metanoia could mean
the transformation of one's mind and disposition. Yet it seemed
to express not only the actual change of disposition but also the
way by which this change is accomplished, that is, the grace of
God. Such transition of the mind, that is, the most true poenitentia,
is found very frequently in Holy Scripture: the old Passover
foreshadowed it , 10 and Christ made it a reality ; 11 it was also
long before that time prefigured in Abraham, when (according
to die learned exegesis of Paul of Burgos ) 12 he began to be called
“he who passes over,” that is, a “Hebrew,” evidently because he
had come across into Mesopotamia . 13 The title of the Psalm like-
wise [suggests] it when it calls the singer “Idithun,” which means
“he who jumps over .” 14

Continuing this line of reasoning, I became so bold as to
believe that they were wrong who attributed so much to peni-
tential works that they left us hardly anything of poenitentia ,
except some trivial satisfactions on the one hand and a most
laborious confession on the other. It is evident that they were
misled by the Latin term, because the expression poenitentiam

10 Exod. 12:11.

11 I Cor. 5:7.

12 Paul of Burgos ( 1353P-1435?) was the converted Jew Salomon ben Levi.
He became bishop of Cartagena in 1405, bishop of Burgos in 1415, and
chancellor of Castile in 1416?. The Additiones, his most important work,
consists of critical additions to the Postil of Nicholas of Lyra (see p. 26, n.
14). Luther used both commentaries, especially in his First Lectures on the
Psalms; see p. 18, n. 3. Here he is referring to the Additio 1 of the explana-
tion of Gen. 12:6, or Matthew 21 in Postilla Fratris Nicolai de Lyra . . .
cum Additionibus Pauli Episcopi Burgensis . . . (Niimberg: J. Koberger,
1493).

is Gen. 12:6. Luther understands the noun “Hebrew, * ibri in Hebrew, as
being derived from the Hebrew verb ibari, meaning to pass over or through.
14 Psalm 39, the heading in Hebrew.

LETTERS

agere 1 * suggests more an action than a change in disposition;
and in no way does this do justice to the Greek metanoein . 19

While this thought was still agitating me, behold, suddenly
around us the new war trumpets of indulgences and the bugles
of pardon started to sound, even to blast, but they failed to evoke
in us any prompt zeal for the battle. In short, while the doctrine
of the true poenitentia was neglected, they 17 even dared to
magnify not poenitentia— not even its least important part, which
is called satisfaction 18 — but only the remission of this least impor-
tant part, so that one has never heard of a similar “glorification”
of poenitentia . Finally they taught impious, false, and heretical
things with so much authority-temerity, I wanted to say— that
if anyone muttered anything in protest he was immediately a
heretic destined for the stake and guilty of eternal damnation.

Since I was not able to counteract the furor of these men,
I determined modestly to take issue with them and to pronounce
their teachings as open to doubt . 19 I relied on the judgment of
all the doctors and of the whole church that it is better to per-
form the satisfactions than to have them remitted by buying in-
dulgences. There is no one who has ever taught differently. This
is why I entered the disputation; that is, I have provoked all the
people, the great, the average, the mediocre, to hate me
thoroughly, at least as much as could be engineered and accom-
plished by these men who have such great zeal for money (oh,
no, I should have said for souls!). Since these “lovely” people
cannot refute what I have said, they arm themselves with the
greatest cunning and pretend that I violated papal authority by
my theses . 20

15 The Vulgate translation of metanoeite in Matt. 3:2 is poenitentiam agite.
This could mean both the attempt to attain a penitent heart and the fulfilment
of the satisfactions imposed by the church upon the penitent (see pp. 43 f.).
In his Annotations, Erasmus has demonstrated (see notes 6, 9) how the word
poenitentia came to be applied to the satisfactions and why he considered
poenitentiam agite to be an unsatisfactory translation of metanoeite. See
Clericus 6, 17, E f.

16 Luther transliterates this Greek verb as metanoin.

17 The agents and preachers of the indulgences; see pp. 45 ff.

18 See pp. 43 f.

19 By means of the Ninety-five Theses ; see p. 49, n. 22.

20 In April/May, 1518, John Tetzel, one of the indulgence commissioners of
Albrecht of Mainz, had issued theses in which he charged Luther with viola-

TO JOHN VON STAUPITZ, MAY 30, 1518

This is the reason, Reverend Father, why I now, unfortunately,
step out into public view. I have always loved privacy and would
much prefer to watch the splendid performance of the gifted
people of our age than become a part of the show and be ridi-
culed. But I know that weeds are to be found among the useful
greens, and white has to be interspersed with black for the sake
of decor and beauty.

And so I am asking you to receive this poor writing of mine 21
and to forward it with whatever speed is available to you to
our excellent Pope Leo X , 22 so that it may serve me there as an
advocate, so to speak, in the face of the contrivings of the evil-
minded. I ask this not because I want to get you involved in my
danger; I prefer to take all the risk myself. Christ will know
whether my words are his or my own. Without Christ s command
not even a pope can speak, nor is the heart of a king in his own
hand . 23 This Christ is the judge whose verdict I am awaiting
through the Roman See . 24

Besides this, I have no other answer to my threatening friends
than the word of Reuchlin, “He who is poor has nothing to fear;
he has nothing to lose .” 25 I have no property, and desire none.
If I possessed any prestige and honor— well, he who loses them
now will simply continue to lose them. There is only one thing
left: my poor worn body, which is exhausted by constant hard-
ships . 26 If they take this away by force or guile (in order to

tion of the papal authority. For the text, see EA War. arg. 1, 296 ff.; St. L.
18, 94 f.

21 Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute ( Explanations of the
Theses Concerning the Value of Indulgences) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg,
August, 1518). WA 1, 529 ff.; LW 31, 83 ff. With his letter Luther is en-
closing a copy of the manuscript; a printed copy was not available before
August 21, 1518; see p. 75; see also WA 1, 522.

22 See p. 100.

23 Prov. 21:1.

24 When Luther made this statement he obviously was still willing to acknowl-
edge the authority of the Papal See. In the following months his view under-
went a rapid change until, during the Leipzig Disputation, 1519 (see p. 128),
he challenged this authority and made acceptance of any papal verdict de-
pendent upon its agreement with Scripture. See also p. 74, n. 7; pp. 88 f.

25 This statement of Reuchlin could not be traced; on Reuchlin, see p. 9.

26 Luther's health had been drastically impaired by the severity of his ascetic
exercises and the almost superhuman load of work he had been carrying (see
pp. 27 f.). "I almost met death by my fasting, abstinence, and austerity in labor

LETTERS

serve God), then they will deprive me of perhaps only one or two
hours of life. It is enough for me to have the dear Savior and
Redeemer, my Lord Jesus Christ. I shall sing praise to him as
long as I live . 27 What do I care if someone does not want to
join me in this hymn of praise? He may howl, even all by him-
self, if he wishes to do so.

My dearest Father, the Lord Jesus keep you unto eternity.

Wittenberg , May 30, 1518 28

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, August 8, 1518

Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz received Luthe/s Ninety-five Theses ,
but did not wish to get entangled in the matter . Therefore he had
the theses forwarded to the Curia with the indictment that Luther
was spreading new doctrines. The Curia did not take the case
very seriously until the indulgence commissioner John Tetzel and
his Dominican Order implied Luther was a heretic. Under Domini-
can pressure the Curia then began in mid-June, 1518, to try Luther
for heresy and summoned him to appear before the papal court. In
this letter Luther asks Spalatin to have the Electoral and Imperial
governments intervene at the Papal See so that his case would be
heard in Germany by impartial judges.

See Bainton, pp. 90 ff.; Schwiebert, pp. 338 ff. On George
Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 188.

To my most learned and friendly George Spalatin,
presently at Augsburg , 1 my friend, sincerely loved in Christ

and clothing; by all this my body was terribly weakened and exhausted”; see
WA 44 , 705. See also pp. 16, 88, 188, 198; p. 217, n. 15.

27 Ps. 146:2.

28 The signature is missing since the translation is based on a printed edition
of the text of the Explanations (see note 21), where the letter appears as a
preface.

1 Spalatin was accompanying Elector Frederick to the Reichstag (diet) which

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 8, 1518
Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin, I now need your help more than ever, or
rather, it is the honor of almost our whole University that needs
it along with me. This means that you should use your influence
with the Most Illustrious Sovereign 2 and Doctor Pfeffinger 3 that
our Sovereign and His Imperial Majesty 4 obtain for me from the
Pope the return of my case, so that it is tried before German
judges 5 — as I have already written to our Sovereign . 6 For you
can see how subtly and maliciously those murderous Dominicans 7

was in session in Augsburg in the summer of 1518. Not until 1663 did the
diet meet at fixed times and places. It was composed of the Reichsstdnde
(Imperial Estates) and their representatives, which were organized into the
Electoral college (the Duke of Saxony was one of its seven members), the
college of the other secular and ecclesiastical peers, and the college made up
of representatives of the free Imperial cities. The diet was the political
platform of the Empire, which was in reality a loose confederation of sovereign
territories. The Reich stagsabschied (Resolution of the Diet) was binding
upon the emperor and the Estates as a contract between sovereign parties.
Based on this resolution, the emperor and the Imperial chancellory (over
which the grand-chancellor presided) directed the affairs of the Empire. In
case of the emperor's inability to act, he was replaced by the Reichsregiment
(Council of Regency), which then took charge of the daily duties of admin-
istration. Between 1500 and 1520, Elector Frederick of Saxony had been
president of this council several times. Therefore in this letter Luther is
approaching one of the highest dignitaries of the Imperial government. To
understand Luther's request for help as well as the procedure of his trial,
one has to look at the legal environment of his case. No subject of an
Electoral territory could be tried before an extraterritorial court except
members of the clergy and monastic orders. Luther was, therefore, subject
to the jurisdiction of the church. No ecclesiastical sentence which went
beyond the purely spiritual sphere could be legally executed, however, if the
secular authorities refused to co-operate. In this letter Luther is appealing
to these secular authorities for help, and he eventually received it; in
addition, since Elector Frederick was determined to hold his protecting hand
over Luther, the jurisdiction of the church would obviously be hampered.
The church could prosecute and sentence Luther, but difficulties would arise
in carrying out the sentence; to lay hold of Luther and enforce it, the church
would have to deal with the Imperial or Electoral governments.

2 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

3 Deginhard Pfeffinger; see p. 32, n. 28.

4 Maximilian I, emperor from 1493 to 1519.

5 Pope Leo X; see p. 100. Luther wrote: “. . . remissionem seu commissionem
causae meae ad partes . . . .” This is a technical term similar to the one
he used in his letter of August 5, 1514; see p. 10, and note 1 there.

6 This letter to Elector Frederick seems to be lost; the letter to Spalatin
was a companion letter to it, sent by the same messenger.

7 Especially John Tetzel and Sylvester Prierias. The latter was a father
confessor of Pope Leo X and papal censor of publications; see O.D.C.C.,
p. 1103.

LETTERS

carry on with a view to my ruin. I would have written about this
to Doctor Pfeffinger, with the request that he and his friends use
their influence and obtain this favor for me from His Majesty and
the Sovereign; but this affair has to be handled in a great hurry.
They have given me only a short time, as you can see and read
in the Summons* that Lemaean swamp full of hydras and other
monsters . 9 Therefore if you love me and hate iniquity , 10 take care
of this and ask for the Sovereign's advice and help soon. Let me
know what you find out, or what is even more important, let our
Most Reverend Father Vicar John Staupitz 11 know; he is probably
already with you at Augsburg, or will soon arrive. He is staying at
Salzburg, but he has promised the Niimbergers to be with them for
the Assumption Festival . 12 Finally please do not be disturbed or
sad in my behalf. The Lord will provide with the trial a way out . 13

I am already replying to the Dialogue of Sylvester , 14 which is
exactly like a wild, entangled jungle . 15 You will soon have the
whole work, when it is completed. That “sweetest” man is simul-
taneously my accuser and my judge , 16 as you can see from the
Summons.

8 The Summons was issued by the papal court and demanded that Luther
appear in Rome within sixty days. The original of the Summons does not
seem to be extant; we know of its content only by the information Luther
gives us in his Acta Augustana ( Proceedings at Augsburg). WA 2, 25 f.;
LW 31, 290.

9 Lema, a marsh near Argos, was the abode of the mythical Lemaean hydra,
which was slain by Hercules and Iolaus; see O.C.D., p. 413; Erasmus,
Adagia; see Clericus 2, 122, D f. See also Clericus 2, 197, C.

See Ps. 45:7.

11 See p. 64, n. 1.

12 Assumption of the Virgin Mary, August 15.

19 1 Cor. 10:13 (Vulgate).

14 Luther is referring to Sylvester Prierias* Dialogue Concerning Papal
Authority ; this was a refutation of the Ninety-five Theses and was to be the
core of the charge against Luther. For the text, see EA, Var. arg. 1, 344 ff.
Its tone of slander set the pace for the atmosphere in which the Curia planned
to deal with Luther. Luther answered it immediately with his Ad Dialogum
Silvestri Prieritatis de Potestate Papae Responsio (Answer to the Dialogue of
Sylvester Prierias Concerning Papal AuthoHty) (Leipzig: M. Lotther, August,
1518). WA 1, 647 ff.

15 This is a pun; the Latin Silvester means overgrown with woods.

16 As papal censor of books, Prierias (see note 7) examined Luther's teach-
ings for heresy, and on the basis of his findings condemned Luther (see
note 14).

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 28, 1518

Farewell. I am occupied with so much writing that I cannot
go into details.

Wittenberg, August 8, 1518

Friar Martin Eijeutherius 17
Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, August 28, 1518

This letter is Luthers reaction to the maneuvers of the Papal
Legate to the German diet which was meeting at Augsburg during
the summer of 1518 ; he reveals a plan to avoid the danger caused
by the Summons to Rome (see p . 72). Luther also comments on
some of his writings.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br 1, 190-191 .

To my friend George Spalatin, priest of Christ, chaplain to
Duke Frederick of Saxony, a learned friend, presently at Augsburg 1

Jesus

Greetings. The messenger I sent to the Most Illustrious Sovereign
Frederick has not yet returned , 2 and so I am still waiting to see
what the Lord will do through you people with regard to my case.
I have heard, however, that the Most Reverend Cardinal Cajetan 3

17 See p. 55, n. 12.

1 See p. 70, n. 1.

2 Evidently with the answer to the letter mentioned on p. 71, n. 0. On
Elector Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

3 Jacopo de Vio of Gaeta (1468P-1534) assumed the names “Thomas” in
honor of St. Thomas Aquinas and “Cajetan,” which he derived from his birth
place Gaeta. Cajetan, O. P., was the most outstanding Thomistic theologian
of the early sixteenth century. He studied at Naples, Bologna, and Padua,
and taught theology and philosophy in Padua, Pavia, and Rome. In 1517
he was elevated to cardinal. In 1518/19 he served as legate, or ambassador,
of the Papal See to Germany. After 1519 he was engaged in various dip-

LETTERS

has particular orders from the Pope 4 to exert every effort to turn
the Emperor 5 and the sovereigns against me. So afraid are the
consciences of even such great bishops, or rather, so immense and
unbearable is the power of truth over woiks done in darkness I In
all this I fear nothing, as you know, my Spalatin. Even if their
flattery and power should succeed in making me hated by all
people, enough remains of my heart and conscience to know and
confess that all for which I stand and which they attack, I have
from God, to whom I gladly and of my own accord entrust and
offer all of this. If he takes it away, it is taken away; if he preserves
it, it is preserved. Hallowed and praised be his name forever.
Amen.

Thus far I do not see clearly enough how I can avoid those
punishments intended for me unless the Sovereign 6 extends his
help to me. On the other hand I would rather, constantly suffer
punishments than have the reputation of the Sovereign hurt because
of me. Believe me, I am still ready to present myself, as I have
been previously; 7 convince those whom you wish of this, or those
whom you consider necessary. I shall never be a heretic. I can
err in a debate, but I do not desire to settle anything, nor am I,
on the other hand, bound by human opinions . 8

lomatic missions of the Curia. From 1525 on he functioned as an adviser of
the Curia. In this position he prepared some of the theological and legal
weapons which Rome used in the battle against the Reformation between
1524 and 1534. See O.D.C.C., p. 216. For the instructions to Cardinal
Cajetan, see p. 91, n. 13; St. L. 15, 523 ff.; 539 f.; WA 2, 23 f.; LW
31, 286 f.

4 Pope Leo X; see p. 100.

5 Maximilian I, emperor from 1493 to 1519.

6 Elector Frederick.

7 Throughout his whole struggle with Rome— as a matter of fact, throughout
his life— one of Luthers strong arguments against the Roman church was
that from the beginning he had been willing to listen and to be taught,
and that if convicted of heresy he would be willing to suffer the con-
sequences; he always pointed out that he made himself available but Rome
was unwilling to “teach” him.

8 The doctrine of indulgences had not yet received an official dogmatic
definition (see p. 44). Claims concerning the indulgences could, therefore,
be regarded as mere human opinions, and Luther could hold a different
opinion without being thereby a “heretic.” Because the indulgence case was
an open one, Luther felt that arguments on the basis of Scripture and
tradition rather than indictments were in order.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 28, 1518

It seems wise to our learned and well-meaning friends 9 that I
request from our Sovereign Frederick a so-called safe-conduct
through his domain. They say that if he should refuse it to me,
as I know he will, then I would have the most legal restriction
and excuse not to appear in Rome. You would do me a great favor
if you were willing to acquire in my name a written statement
from the Most Illustrious Sovereign in which he would refuse to
issue a safe-conduct to me and would leave it to my own risk,
should I want to go anyway . 10 Fast action is necessary here. The
days fly by and the appointed day draws near . 11 Too great a
distance separates us, and daily business takes up much time.

I am sending the Explanations of my theses , 12 but the print is
done badly, on account of my long absence . 13 My Reply to the
Dialogue of Sylvester 14 is now being printed at Leipzig , 15 along
with the Dialogue itself; I shall send it to you shortly.

I deeply regret that my name and case have risen to such a
height and have gotten to such a stage that they have even become
the concern of such outstanding sovereigns, and that the great
splendor of these important men has to deal with such an insig-
nificant person as myself. I have too small an opinion of myself,
especially as a debater, to disturb those of my own kind, not to
speak of the nobility.

It is not known who these friends were. One of them might have been
Jerome Schurf, a lawyer in Wittenberg who also taught at the University
and was Luther’s legal counsel at the Diet of Worms; see p. 219, n. 2.

10 Elector Frederick refused this request; see Spalatin’s letter to Luther:
Augsburg, September 5, 1518. WA, Br 1, 201. In the meantime the Elector
was able to arrange for a hearing to be conducted in Augsburg, or at least
to gain strong diplomatic support for it, so that for the time being, at least,
the Summons (see p. 72) was void.

11 Luther was due to appear in Rome within sixty days after receiving the
Summons (see p. 72). Since he had received the Summons on August 7,
he was due in Rome on October 7; see WA, Br 1, 188; WA 2, 25; LW 31,
290.

12 See p. 69, n. 21.

13 In July, 1518, Luther visited Dresden; see WA, Br 1, 194. Because of
his absence Luther could not supervise the printing. For Luther’s evaluation
of the printer’s work, see p. 19, n. 8.

14 See p. 72, n. 14.

15 Luther’s usual printer in Wittenberg, John Griinenberg, could not keep
pace with Luther’s writing activities.

LETTERS

Farewell, always in the Lord.

Wittenberg, August 28, 1518 16

Friar Martin Eleutherius 17
Augustinian

Friends also suggest that care should be taken that the state-
ment be, as they say, predated. That means it should be dated
as if it were written on the Eve of St. Bartholomew . 18 They say
this would not be a lie, since it is sure and obvious that up to
now the Sovereign's heart and mind always wanted to refuse the
safe-conduct, or permit.

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, August 31, 1518

While Luthers trial for heresy dragged on , he continued to be
deeply involved in his academic work . In this letter he reports on
his treatise about excommunication and his reply to Prierias . He
evaluates the inaugural address of Philip Melanchthon and ex-
presses his concern about Melanchthon s salary.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 1, 191-192.

To the most learned and kind George Spalatin,
chaplain to the Duke of Saxony, my faithful friend in Christ

16 On the dating of this letter, see WA, Br 1, 189 f.

17 See p. 55, n. 12.

18 The day before any great feast, including the Apostles' days, is called
the “eve” of the feast because a preparatory vigil service is observed on
that day. In the western church, St. Bartholomew's Day is celebrated on
August 24 (only in the city of Rome is it celebrated on August 25). Luther
suggests that the letter be signed the Eve of St. Bartholomew, that is,
August 23. He wanted to pretend that upon receipt of the Summons
(see p. 72), he had at once undertaken the necessary preparations for the
trip to Rome, which included a request for a safe-conduct, and that it was
only due to the Elector's refusal that he could not obey the Summons.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 31, 1518

Jesus

Greetings. The Treatise on Excommunication 1 was already pub-
lished, my Spalatin, before your letter 2 arrived. Written with so
much moderation, however, and supported by such strong argu-
ments for truth, the treatise I hope not only will not be disapproved
of by those who love truth, but may even be received with great
favor by those whom tyranny itself pleases. Although troubled
about it, I praised this sacred power highly but without flattery.
I have set forth in it only what they themselves have taught and
still teach.

With regard to what you write and urge concerning our Philip
Melanchthon, 3 all has been done and ought to be done. Do not

1 Excommunication (see O.D.C.C., p. 481) was a frequent punishment in
Luther’s time. The sacraments were even withheld from the faithful if they
failed to pay the required church tithes— regardless of whether or not they
were able to pay them. Excommunication was an immense pastoral problem.
As a pastor Luther was often confronted by it, and finally in May, 1518, he
preached quite openly on this sensitive subject. Either enemies or well-
meaning but ill-informed friends circulated theses which were allegedly based
on this sermon but misrepresented Luther’s position. These theses even
reached the diet, then in session in Augsburg (see p. 70, n. 1), and caused
a major storm. Yet before Luther was informed of this situation, he had
already decided to publish his own version in order to clarify his stand on
the matter. He did this with his Sermo de virtute excommunicationis
( Treatise on the Power of Excommunication ) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg,
end of August, 1518). WA 1, 636 f.; PE 2, 37 ff.

2 This letter is not extant, but in it Spalatin must have tried, most certainly
upon orders of Elector Frederick, to prevent the publication of the Treatise
on the Power of Excommunication. The Elector must have been afraid that
this treatise would not only unnecessarily antagonize the Curia but also lessen
the chance that the Imperial government might intervene in Luther’s behalf;
see pp. 70 ff.; p. 75, n. 11.

3 Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), a brilliant young Humanist and Greek
scholar, was a grandnephew of John Reuchlin. In 1514 he was graduated
as Master of Arts from the University of Tubingen. In 1516 he became one
of the close friends and admirers of Erasmus of Rotterdam (see pp. 116 f.).
Upon Reuchlin’s recommendation, Melanchthon was called in the summer
or 1518, at the age of twenty-one, to the University of Wittenberg as pro-
fessor of Greek. Soon after his arrival a close friendship developed between
him and Luther, which lasted until the Reformer’s death. Melanchthon
absorbed Luther’s theological thought and soon became deeply engaged in
theological writing and lecturing. He became Luther's most capable co-
worker, at least in the academic field. By the time of the Wittenberg dis-
turbances of 1521/22 (see p. 386, n. 1), however, it was quite clear that
Melanchthon could not supply the dynamic leadership Luther had been
giving the Reformation. It seems tragic that Melanchthon was again and
again called away from his academic work to carry out diplomatic missions.

LETTERS

doubt it. Four days after he had arrived, he delivered an extremely
learned and absolutely faultless address . 4 All esteemed and ad-
mired him greatly, so you need not worry on what grounds you
should recommend him to us. We very quickly turned our minds
and eyes from his appearance and person to the man himself. We
congratulate ourselves on having this man and marvel at what he
has in him. We thank the Most Illustrious Sovereign , 5 as well as
you, for your efforts. You ought, however, to exercise special care
as to how you may present him in the most favorable light to our
Sovereign. I certainly do not wish to have a different Greek in-
structor as long as he is alive. I only fear that perhaps his con-
stitution is not sturdy enough for the rough way of life in our
region . 6 I am also afraid that he has been hired for far too scanty
a salary, as I hear. On this basis, the already exulting Leipzig
Faculty may be hoping to snatch him away from us as soon as
possible, for they tried to lure him shortly before he arrived here . 7
I and many with me suspect that Doctor Pfeffinger , 8 as is his way,
also wanted in this case to be too good a steward of the Sovereign’s

a task for which he was not well qualified. His main interest lay in shaping
the field of education, in both theology and liberal arts. His greatest gift
was his ability to state complicated issues with clarity and simplicity. The
Augsburg Confession and the Apology are among his most outstanding and
permanent contributions to the Reformation. Yet during the Diet of Augs-
burg (1530) Melanchthon's weak side became evident: to preserve the unity
of the church he was too ready to compromise, thus endangering the very
principles of the Reformation. As Melanchthon's ideas matured, their
Humanistic basis increasingly penetrated and jeopardized Luther's influence.
Melanchthon’s theological position finally became clear in his stand in the
Eucharistic controversy and in the later struggles within the Lutheran church
after the Reformer's death. In these controversies Melanchthon moved rather
close to Calvinism, and by doing so called forth violent opposition from
those who considered themselves the true heirs of Luther's thoughts (whether
they were right is another matter). See C. L. Manschreck, Melanchthon :
The Quiet Reformer (New York, 1958); O.D.C.C., pp. 88 2 f.

4 Melanchthon had arrived in Wittenberg on August 25. His inaugural
address of August 29 dealt with reshaping the curriculum; see C.R. 11, 15 ff.

5 Elector Frederick ( see pp. 49 f . ) , the secular supervisor of the University.

6 For a similar statement, see pp. 29 f.

7 In the autograph the last part of the sentence ( from “for” on ) is added
in the margin. On the rivalry between Leipzig and Wittenberg, see p. 63,
n. 24. When Melanchthon went through Leipzig on August 20 on his way
to Wittenberg, the Leipzig Faculty gave him a royal reception and tried
to induce him to stay at Leipzig; see WA, Br 1, 193, n. 4.

8 Deginhard Pfeffinger; see p. 32, n. 28.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 31, 1518

purse. Therefore, my Spalatin, to speak freely, as with my dearest
friend, see to it that you people [at the court] do not undervalue
Melanchthon because of his person or age. This man is worthy of
every honor. I do not want us and our University to expose our-
selves as country-bumpkins, from which our enemies could make
such a splendid story at our expense.

I am sending you my silly trifles, in a most extemporaneous
fashion composed against Sylvester 9 -truly my wood-and-field
sophist 10 — which I have turned out in two days . 11 He does not
seem to me worthy of vainly putting an undue amount of brain-
power and effort to work against his trivialities— those “water-
bubble syllogisms,” as they call them. I thank both God and you
that my case is in your care.

Farewell, and love [me] in Christ.

August 31 , 1518 Friar Martin Lut her

Augustinian

Doctor Andrew Karlstadt 12 is undertaking another battle

9 See p. 71, n. 7; p. 72, n. 14.

19 Cf. p. 72, n. 15.

11 Prierias bragged that it took him only three days to write his Dialogue
and thus refute Luthers Ninety-five Theses; see EA, Var. arg. 1, 345. Luther,
in turn, claims that it took him only two days to prove Prierias a fool.

12 Andrew Bodenstein of Karlstadt/Main ( 1480P-1541 ) was graduated as
Doctor of Theology from the University of Wittenberg in 1510. He was
appointed archdeacon of the All Saints' Chapter at the Castle Church in
Wittenberg and taught at the University there. Stimulated by his colleague
Luther, he intensively studied the works of St. Augustine in 1516/17 (see
p. 54, n. 7) and became persuaded that Luther's position was right. In
Leipzig in 1519 (see p. 126), both men struggled together against Eck
(see note 13). During the Wittenberg disturbances of 1521/22 (see p. 386,
n. 1), however, basic differences erupted between him and Luther, resulting
in bitter hostility between them. Karls tad t's legalistic understanding of Scrip-
ture and spiritualistic interpretation of the Christian religion precipitated the
first internal crisis in the Reformation movement. The spiritualists (Luther
called them Schwarmer) rejected “concreteness” as a medium of divine ex-
pression and saw an infinite chasm between matter and spirit. This led
Karlstadt to his iconoclasm and his denial of Christ's real presence in the
Lord's Supper (see LW 40, 61 ff., 73 ff. ). During Luther's stay at the Wart-
burg, Karlstadt, in co-operation with Gabriel Zwilling (see p. 39, n. 3) and
the “Zwickau prophets” (see p. 364, n. 28), abolished the old forms of wor-
ship (the mass) in Wittenberg and helped destroy symbols of piety (religious
pictures, statues, crucifixes, etc.; see pp. 401 f.). These were, according to him,
contrary to Scripture. Through Luther's sudden return from the Wartburg
in March, 1522 (see pp. 386 ff. ), and his strong intervention, Karls tadt's
radical reforms were curbed and some of the traditional symbols restored. Soon

LETTERS

against Eck’s 18 Defense. 1 * As far as I can see, Eck has accom-
plished nothing by his Defense but to point out the very spot where
he can most conveniently be destroyed.

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, September 2, 1518

Luther expresses his fear that the name and reputation of Elector
Frederick may suffer because of the indulgence controversy. He

after this Karlstadt withdrew to the parish in Orlamiinde (which was a part
of his benefice as archdeacon), where he established a “puritanic” church
system (Bainton, pp. 256 ff.). He became antagonistic to the faculty at
Wittenberg. At the same time he directed his whole attention to the laity,
especially to the “poor” peasants. Thus he came dangerously close to the
radical Thomas Miinzer (see O.D.C.C . , p. 933). In the fall of 1524 he was
exiled from Electoral Saxony. From that time on he and his family had
to endure years of restless wandering and great hardship. In 1534 he finally
was able to take up permanent residence in Basel as a preacher and a
professor at the University, and eventually he died there. See O.D.C.C.,
p. 237.

13 John Maier of Egg/Giinz, hence Eck (1486-1543), was a professor of
theology and the vice-chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria.
He had been exposed to Humanism, and some of his early writings were
almost anti-Scholastic in their theology. He was the only theologian who
was even remotely a match for Luther's learnedness. On various occasions
Eck and Luther clashed violently. During the Leipzig Disputation (June/
July, 1519; see p. 126), Eck was able to draw out the statement from Luther
that popes and councils of the church can err and have erred; as a result,
Eck branded Luther a Hussite, and thus he was largely responsible for
procuring the bull “ Exsurge , Domine” (see p. 179, n. 1), which he propagated
throughout southern and central Germany. From 1518 on, he dedicated
himself to refuting the theological position of the Reformation and to organ-
izing Roman Catholic political opposition to the Reformation. He became
famous in connection with the Diet of Augsburg (1530), where he was the
spearhead of the Roman Catholic attack on the Reformation, and for his
part in the colloquies held between the Reformers and the Roman church
from 1540 to 1543. See O.D.C.C., p. 436.

14 Early in 1518 Luther had received Eck’s Obelisci, in which Eck developed
a radical criticism of Luther’s Ninety-five Theses . Luther replied at once
with his Asterisci ; see WA 1, 281 ff. Later in the spring of 1518 Karlstadt
issued certain theses (see WA, Br 1, 183, n. 2) in which he refuted Eck’s
Obelisci. Eck replied in a Defense published August 14, 1518; Karlstadt
immediately began to work on his answer, which he published in October,
1518 (see WA, Br 1 , 193 , n. 7). Luther is referring to this answer.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 2, 1518

discusses a tax for a war against the Turks and forwards important
questions the student body and faculty have raised about the reor-
ganization of the curriculum ; he also praises Melanchthon.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br I, 195-196 .

To my most learned and upright friend, George Spalatin,
a priest of Christ, chaplain to the Elector of Saxony

Jesus

Greetings. You write, my Spalatin, that there are people who try
to ruin our Most Illustrious Sovereign 1 before heaven and earth.
For goodness’ sake, what kind of a monstrosity is that? I hope from
my heart that I am not the cause of this. As I have said, so I say
again: I do not wish our most innocent Sovereign to do anything
in this affair to defend my theses; 2 3 I am ready and willing to be
exposed to all who want to act or write against me. 8 I hope the
Sovereign will not get involved in my affairs, unless he could, with-
out inconvenience, keep force from being used against me. Even
if he cannot do this, I still want to carry the whole danger alone.
In spite of all the opinions of the Thomists, 4 I hope I can well
defend what I have undertaken to defend, so that I may glory
in Christ’s leadership. Even if it [then] will be necessary to yield
to violence, at least truth will not be hurt. .

I believe that my Explanations (printed quite full of mistakes)
and the rebuttal of Sylvester’s Dialogue have reached you. 5 I ask
you to tell everyone you can that it is Martin who has debated
this. If anyone wants to argue against [these writings] or hopes
to produce something better, he wall find me ready to learn, or, in
turn, to teach. Therefore they should be dealing with me. Why do

1 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

2 The Ninety-five Theses; see p. 49, n. 22.

3 See p. 74, n. 7.

4 These are the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas ( see O.D.C.C., pp. 1352
f., 1225 f.). The arguments which Prierias (see p. 71, n. 7; p. 72, n. 14),
and Cajetan (see p. 73, n. 3; p. 85, n. 11), for instance, used against
Luther’s statements were drawn from late medieval Thomistic teachers.

5 See p. 69, n. 21; p. 72, n. 14; p. 75.

LETTERS

they vainly plague the Sovereign or others in this affair? But
enough of this.

Among our fine young people here a problem has arisen. I con-
sulted with friends, and it seemed wise to report it to you, or rather
through you to inform the Sovereign . 6 This is the problem: since
now by Gods grace the best lectures flourish and the students
are astonishingly eager for Scripture and unadulterated theology,
it seems hard to them to have to neglect the best courses because
of other courses 7 required for graduation, or at least to have to
carry a load that is far too heavy and composed of both kinds of
courses. [The students] petition, therefore, that if possible the
course on ethics 8 (which obviously is related to theology as the
wolf is to the lamb) be made elective, that is, that it should be
free to all who wish to attend it but not be required for graduation.

The other question under discussion is this: what should be
the rule for those who are to be examined as bachelors and masters
according to the new courses? 9 But here we shall have to attend
to this matter ourselves, unless you have some better advice at
hand on this problem.

We have a certain letter from the city of Rome, quite learned
yet extremely violent [in tone] against the Roman cunning in the
matter of the new tithe to be levied for the war against the Turks . 10
Obviously this tax was thought out by the Florentine [bankers],
the most avaricious of all people under heaven. They use the
pope’s good nature to satisfy their bottomless greed. But I believe

6 As territorial lord Elector Frederick was the secular superior of the
University; the bishop of Brandenburg was the ecclesiastical superior of the
University; see p. 64.

7 See p. 41; p. 42, n. 7; pp. 38, 57 ff., 96.

8 A course on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle and the Scholastic com-
mentaries on it. See p. 25, and note 10 there.

9 See p. 41. Between 1517 and 1519 the University undertook a basic
reconstruction of its curriculum; see also p. 95; Schwiebert, pp. 294 ff.

10 One of the issues on which the Diet of Augsburg ( see p. 70, n. 1 ) had
to act was a tax for a crusade against the Turks; it was brought to the
floor by the papal legate (see p. 73, n. 3). This tax was violently opposed
by many people. Their feelings were expressed in a pamphlet by an op-
ponent of the papal request, entitled Exhortatio ... ad principes , ne in
decimae praestationem . . . consentiant ( Admonition Directed to the Sover-
eigns not to Consent to the Tithe); see Booking 5, 168 f.; WA, Br 1, 197,
n. 8. Luther is referring to this pamphlet. The Pope and his legate sup-
ported the tax, hence Luther's remark concerning the cardinals.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 2, 1518

you [at Augsburg] have had a copy of this letter for some time;
if not, write and I shall send one. The cardinals are certainly
legates of avarice (in case you do not know it) if what the letter
says is true.

Farewell in the Lord, and hold Philip 11 in the greatest pos-
sible esteem; he is an excellent Greek teacher and a most learned
and kind man. His classroom is jammed with students . 12 He
especially makes all theologians zealous to study Greek— the most
outstanding ones, as well as the average and the weak.

Wittenberg, September 2, 1518

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Augsburg, October 14, 1518

The efforts of the Imperial and Electoral Saxon governments at
the Curia to have Luthers trial conducted in Germany, or at least
begun there (see p. 71), were successful . As a result Luther was
summoned to appear in Augsburg before the papal legate to the
German diet. Cardinal Cajetan (see p. 73, n. 3); he traveled almost
the entire journey from Wittenberg to Augsburg on foot; see W A,
TR 5, No. 5349. This letter is a report on the hearing he was given
by the Cardinal .

See Schwiebert, pp. 344 ff. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.
Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 214-215.

To my most learned friend George Spalatin, a priest of Christ,
chaplain to the Elector of Saxony,
highly esteemed in Christ,

11 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

12 On December 10, 1518, Spalatin wrote to a friend in Augsburg that
Melanchthon’s lectures on Greek were attended by approximately four
hundred students, which would have been about two-thirds of the entire
student body of the University of Wittenberg; see WA, Br 1, 197, n. 10.

LETTERS

Master George Spalatin: Personal
Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin, with great reluctance I write to our Most
Illustrious Sovereign . 1 So, please, you who are close to him, accept
this letter and take care that its content is communicated to the
most merciful Sovereign. The Legate 2 is negotiating with me, or
rather I should say, maneuvering against me, for the fourth day
already . 3 Indeed he neatly promises to handle everything leniently
and in a fatherly way for the sake of the Most Illustrious Sover-
eign ; 4 in reality, however, he is handling everything with nothing
but mere inflexible power. He did not want me to reply in a public
disputation, nor did he want to debate with me in private. He
continually repeated one thing: recant, acknowledge that you are
wrong; that is the way the Pope 5 wants it and not otherwise,
whether you like it or not— and other things like that. He pushed
me extremely hard with a certain Extravagante of Clement VI,
which begins with the words: “The only-begotten .” 6 Here, he
said, here you see that the pope determines that the merits of
Christ form the treasury of indulgences. Do you believe this or
don’t you? He did not allow any explanation or counterarguments,
although he himself threw around strong words and shouted. At
last, barely moved by the pleading of many people , 7 he permitted

1 Toward the end of September, 1518, Spalatin and Elector Frederick (see
pp. 49 f.) returned from the diet in Augsburg to Saxony; see p. 70, n. 1.

2 Cardinal Cajetan; see p. 73, n. 3.

3 Luther met with Cardinal Cajetan on October 10, 12, 13, and 14.

4 It is not clear under what circumstances the Legate made this promise.
Yet it is understandable if one realizes that the Curia was in great need of
the Elector's good will and support for its plans concerning the future election
of the emperor (see pp. 96 f.) and for the tax for the war against the Turks
(see p. 82, n. 10).

5 Pope Leo X; see p. 100; p. 91, n. 13.

6 Unigenitus Dei Filius (God’s only-begotten Son). This bull was issued
by Pope Clement VI in 1343 (see O.D.C.C., pp. 297 f.). It is found in
the Corpus Iuris Canonici among the Extravagantes communes, lib. v, tit.
IX (De poenitentiis et remissionibus) , cap. 2. CIC 2, 1304 f. See O.D.C.C.,
pp. 346, 486; Denzinger, Nos. 550 f.; Bettenson, pp. 259 f. See also in this
volume, p. 186, n. 1.

7 According to Spalatin’s report, Luther was accompanied to the hearing of
October 13 by Philip von Feilitzsch (see note 8) and three Imperial officials;
see St. L. 15, 564. They must have been among the petitioners.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, OCTOBER 14, 1518

me to make a written defense. This I did today in the presence of
Sir Philip von Feilitzsch , 8 whom I took along for that purpose;
he reminded him again, in the Sovereign s name and on his behalf,
of the Sovereigns request . 9 In the end the Legate disdainfully
flung back my little sheet of paper 10 and yelled again for me to
recant. He considered me defeated and refuted by a verbose and
long speech which he drew from the stories of St. Thomas . 11
Almost ten times I started to say something and each time he
thundered back and took over the conversation. Finally I started
to shout too, saying, “If it can be shown that that Extravagante 12
teaches that Christs merits are the treasury of indulgences, then

I will recant, as you wish.” O God, how much gesticulation and
laughter that caused! Suddenly he grabbed the book 13 and read
hastily and feverishly until he came to the passage where it is
written that Christ acquired the treasury by his suffering, and so
on . 14 Here I interrupted, “See, Most Reverend Father, and con-
sider carefully the word, ‘He has acquired/ If Christ has acquired
the treasury by his merits, then the merits are not the treasury;
rather, the treasury is that which the merits earned, namely, the
keys of the church; therefore my thesis is correct .” 15 Here he was

8 One of the reasons for the Electoral Saxon councilor, Philip von Feilitzsch
(who in 1532 became Electoral Saxon ambassador to the Council of Regency),
remaining in Augsburg was to assist Luther.

9 1.e., he repeated the Elector's request to the Cardinal that Luther be
treated with lenience and fairness. The Elector had also urged the Imperial
government to make a similar request; see S*. L. 15, 550.

10 This statement contained Luther's defense against Cajetan's arguments,
which were based on the bull mentioned in note 6. For the text, see
W A 2, 9 ff.; LW 31, 264 ff.

II See p. 81, n. 4. The Nominalistic school in which Luther had been
trained (see p. 59, n. 19) had little respect for the system of St. Thomas;
see also p. 96, n. 8.

12 See note 6.

13 The Corpus Iuris Canonici (see note 6).

14 The passage reads: “Wherefore therefrom [the death of Christ] (so that
the pitifulness of such an effusion be not rendered idle, useless, or super-
fluous) how great a treasure did the holy Father acquire for the church
militant, wishing to enrich his sons with treasure, . . . and those who avail
themselves thereof are made partakers of God's friendship.” See Bettenson,
p. 260. The “treasury” is a reserve fund of good works accumulated by
Christ and the saints, upon which the pope could draw when he remitted
satisfactions by indulgences; see p. 44.

16 Theses 58 and 60 of the Ninety-five Theses. Thesis 58: “Nor are they
[the treasures of the church out of which the pope grants indulgences] the
merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always

LETTERS

all of a sudden confused, and since he did not want to appear
confused, he pushed on to other things and shrewdly wanted to
bypass this subject. I, however, was excited and interrupted (I
am sure quite irreverently), “Most Reverend Father, you should
not believe that we Germans are ignorant even in philology. There
is a difference between ‘there is* a treasury and ‘to acquire' a
treasury.” That crushed his self-confidence, although he still
shouted for revocation. When I left he told me, “Go and do not
return to me again unless you want to recant.”

But listen to the following. Soon after lunch [the Legate]
called the Most Reverend Father Vicar, Doctor Staupitz , 16 and
urged him, with much flattery, to persuade me to recant, assuring
him, in my absence, that I had no better friend than he is. After
[von Staupitz] answered that he had attempted (and that even
today he was continuing) to convince me that I should humbly
submit myself to the church, as I previously had stated in public
that I would , 17 he added that he was not equal to me (in his
opinion, of course) in knowledge of Scripture and in talents;
further, since he [Cajetan] here represents the Pope, and in that
position is the superior of all of us, he himself should convince me
to recant. In the end it was decided that [the Legate] would draw
up the articles I should recant and set forth the teaching I should
hold . 18 This is the status of the case thus far. Yet I am not hopeful,
nor do I trust him. However I am working every day on an ap-
peal 19 so that not a single syllable will be recanted. Moreover

work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer
man.” WA 1, 236; LW 31, 30. Thesis 60: “Without want of consideration
we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that
treasure.” WA 1, 236; LW 31, 31. The “keys of the church” are the
administration of the sacraments, especially the proclamation of absolution,
preaching of the gospel, and excommunication of the impenitent sinner.

16 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

17 Reference to the offer made in the letter to von Staupitz of May 30, 1518;
see p. 74, and note 7 there.

18 It is not known whether the Legate ever did this. Luther, however, made
it quite clear at which points and under what circumstances he would
recant; see Luther’s letter of October 17, 1518, to the Papal Legate; WA,
Br 1, 221.

19 This is the Appellatio M. Lutheri a Caietano ad Papam ( Appeal of M.
Luther from Cajetan to the Pope). WA 2, 28 ff. This appeal was notarized
on October 16 and was issued to the public on October 22; see p. 90, n. 4.

TO CARDINAL CAJETAN, OCTOBER 18, 1518

I shall publish the answer I gave him, 20 that it may be spread
through the whole world if he continues to use force, as he has
begun.

Farewell, in haste.

Augsburg, October 14, 1518

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

To the Papal Legate, Cardinal Cajetan
Augsburg, 1 October 18, 1518

The Augsburg negotiations for a peaceful settlement of Luthers
trial collapsed due to Cardinal Cajetan s unwillingness to deal with
Luthers objections to the indulgence traffic . This letter is Luthers
final message to the Cardinal . It seemed that Luther was definitely
in danger of being kidnapped and taken to Rome ; to avoid this,
he secretly and hurriedly left the city .

See Schwiebert, pp . 353 f. On Cardinal Cajetan, see p. 73,

n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 222-223 .

To the Most Reverend Father and Lord in Christ,
Cardinal Thomas, titular priest of Saint Sixtus 2

Most Reverend Father in Christ: You, Most Reverend Father,
have seen— and I emphasize this— and become sufficiently ac-
quainted with my obedience. This obedience made me undertake

20 Luther apparently planned at this point to publish the reply he had given
to Cajetan (see note 10) separately from his appeal (see note 19). Later
he changed his mind and incorporated this answer into the Proceedings at
Augsburg; see p. 91, n. 12; p. 94, n. 6.

1 The source of this letter does not give the place from where Luther wrote;
however one can infer from the contents that it was Augsburg.

2 Every cardinal was titular priest of one of the parish churches in Rome,
such as St. Sixtus.

LETTERS

such a long journey and endure so many dangers— weak in body 3 4 * 6 7 8
and with extremely limited means— in order to appear before you
and make myself available to you, Most Reverend Father, accord-
ing to the orders of our Most Holy Lord, Leo X . 4 Moreover, in the
little book I published, the Explanations , 5 I have thrown myself
and all that is mine at the feet of His Holiness. I have demon-
strated that I am ready to accept whatever would seem good to
His Holiness, be it condemnation or be it approval . 6 I know of
nothing that I have omitted which could pertain to a devoted
and obedient son of the church.

Therefore I do not want to spend time here in vain, nor can
I, since I lack the resources and have been and still am more
than a burden to the Carmelite fathers . 7 The most important rea-
son, however, is that you, Most Reverend Father, have ordered
me, with a loud voice, not to return to your sight unless I wish
to recant . 8 What and how much I can recant, I have indicated
in a previous letter . 9 Consequently I am now leaving and am going
somewhere else, where I shall be able to stay . 10 And although
I have been advised by people 11 who are able to influence persons
greater than I to appeal from you, Most Reverend Father, even
from our ill-informed Most Holy Lord, Leo X, to a pope who
should be better informed , 12 for I know that I will please our Most
Illustrious Sovereign 13 more by appealing than by recanting— yet
I would rather not have appealed, as far as I was concerned. In
the first place I do not consider it necessary to appeal or commit

3 Luther traveled from Wittenberg on foot to within three miles of Augsburg;
see WA, TR 5, No. 5349. His constitution had been severely impaired by his
manner of life as a monk; see p. 69, n. 26.

4 Pope Leo X; see p. 100.

6 See p. 69, n. 21.

6 See p. 69, n. 24.

7 Augsburg had no Augustinian monastery; therefore Luther stayed in the
monastery of the Carmelites.

8 See p. 86, and note 18 there.

9 See Luthers letter to Cardinal Cajetan: Augsburg, October 17, 1518.
WA, Br 1, No. 103.

10 This sounds as if Luther was thinking at the time of dropping out of
sight instead of returning to Wittenberg.

11 Perhaps Philip von Feuitzsch; see p. 85, n. 8.

12 On the appeal, see p. 86, n. 19; p. 90, n, 4.

18 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

TO CARDINAL CAJETAN, OCTOBER 18, 1518

the case to judges 14 since, as I have said, I would leave everything
to the churchs judgment and await only its verdict . 16 What else
should or can I do? There is no need that I should be accused
or that I should defend myself since I direct attention not to what
I have said but rather to what the church will say , 16 nor do I want
to fight as if I were an antagonist, but rather, listen as a disciple.
In addition I am almost convinced that this case is irritating to
you, Most Reverend Father, and that an appeal would be most
welcome [to you]. As I have not deserved any censures, I have
no reason to be afraid of any. Therefore by the grace of God
I am in such a condition that I fear any punishments far less
than errors and wrong opinions concerning faith, since I know
that punishment does no harm but rather is beneficial, if sound
faith and understanding of truth will have been mine.

As a result, I ask you, for the sake of Christ’s mercy and your
eminent clemency which has been shown to me, to be so gracious
and deign to acknowledge this, my flawless obedience, which I have
hitherto rendered, and commend it in a kind way to the Most
Holy Lord, our Pope; [I also ask] that you interpret in a favorable
way my departure and my appeal as being undertaken out of
necessity on my part, and under the influence of friends . 17 I can-
not ignore their voices and arguments when they say: What will
you recant? Aren’t you by your revocation establishing a law of
faith for us ? 18 The church must first condemn, if there is some-
thing to be condemned, and you follow its judgment; but the
church may not follow your judgment. And so I give in as defeated.

Farewell, Most Reverend Father, most highly esteemed in
Christ.

From the Carmelite monastery , October 18, 1518

Most Reverend Father— your dedicated son

Friar Martin Luther

Augustinian

14 See Luther’s request, p. 71.

15 1.e., a dogmatic definition regarding indulgences which so far was lacking;
see p. 44; p. 69, n. 24; p. 74, n. 8.

16 See p. 69, n. 24.

17 See notes 11, 12.

18 Since his views on indulgences had not yet been defined as heresy by the
church, the question was why Luther should recant any of them as being
heresy; see p. 74, n. 8.

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, October 31, 1518

After his safe return from Augsburg (see p. 87), Luther gained
the full support of the University of Wittenberg. In this letter he
informs Spalatin that he next plans to appeal to a General Council
and to publish his side of what transpired at Augsburg. In addition
he comments on University affairs.

See Schwiebert, pp. 356 f. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.
Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 224-225.

To my most learned friend in Christ, George Spalatin,
chaplain to the Elector of Saxony, etc.

Jesus

Greetings. By God’s grace I have safely arrived today 1 at Wit-
tenberg. I do not know how long I shall be able to remain here 2
because my case is such that I both fear and hope . 3 I have
appealed from a pope ill-informed to a pope who should be better
informed . 4 Then I departed, leaving behind a friar who together
with the notary and witnesses was to inform the Cardinal of this
appeal. In the meantime, since I am here, I shall prepare another
appeal to a future council . 5 I will follow the example of the

1 October 31, 1518. On this date, see WA, Br 1, 225, n. 1.

2 See p. 88. Luther could expect excommunication since he had rejected
the Papal Legate s demand to recant; see p. 86. If Luther were excom-
municated, the secular authorities would be obligated to turn him over to
his ecclesiastical superiors. Since he was not sure whether the Elector
would protect him at that point, and since he wished to avoid further com-
plications for the Electoral government, Luther seriously considered leaving
Wittenberg.

3 For similar statements, see pp. 86, 94, 263.

4 See p. 86, n. 19. Luther had drafted his appeal to the Pope with the help
of a lawyer and had it notarized on October 16. He left town during the
night of October 20/21. His companion, Leonard Beier (see p. 39, n. 4),
was to inform Cardinal Cajetan (see p. 73, n. 3) on October 21 of Luther’s
action. On October 22 the appeal was nailed to the door of the cathedral
in Augsburg as a notice to the public. For the text, see WA 2, 28 ff.

6 Luther did this on November 28; for the appeal to a future General
Council of the church, see WA 2, 34 ff.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, OCTOBER 31 , 1518

Parisians 6 in case the Pope 7 should repress the first appeal in the
fulness of his power, or rather his tyranny. I am filled with such
joy and peace that I wonder why my struggle seems to be im-
portant to many and great men . 8

The good will and mildness which the Cardinal Legate 9 had
promised our Most Illustrious [Sovereign ] 10 to show me was cer-
tainly extraordinary and was demonstrated in abundance; we, how-
ever, did not recognize it as such. He offered to handle everything
in a fatherly, even in a most fatherly manner . 11 No doubt he would
have done so had I only been willing to recant my statements, for
the whole case was tied up in that knot. Since I did not want to
do it, and he wanted only that (I do not believe that he had
any orders other than to condemn me), I was forced to appeal.

I shall prepare my replies to his arguments for publication,
together with the appeal . 12 I will add theological notes on the
apostolic, or rather, diabolic breve 13 which you have so often men-

6 “Parisians,” i.e., the theologians of the University of Paris. The University
of Paris had opposed the concordat concluded in 1516 between the king
of France, Francis I, and Pope Leo X, and on March 27, 1517, had appealed
to a future General Council of the church for a decision in this case; see
WA, Br 1, 226, n. 5. Luther is therefore following a recent ecclesiastical
precedent. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the University of
Paris had strongly advocated conciliar control over papal supremacy. See
O.D.C.C., p. 539; LCC 14, 91 ff.

7 Pope Leo X; see p. 100.

8 For a similar statement, see p. 147.

0 Cardinal Cajetan; see p. 73, n. 3.

10 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

11 For this promise, see p. 84.

12 See p. 87, n. 20. At this point, Luther had changed his original plan and
intended to publish his replies to the Cardinal together with his appeal,
mentioned on p. 86, n. 19. It is not clear, however, whether the responsio,
the reply or the defense Luther had given in writing to Cajetan (see p.
85, n. 10; p. 87, n. 20), is identical to the responsiones, the replies, which
Luther now mentions. Perhaps Luther was considering an edition of his
written answer, enlarged by still other material, a plan which was realized
in the Proceedings at Augsburg (see p. 94, n. 6).

13 This is the original instruction of Leo X to his legate Cajetan concerning
the way he should proceed against Luther; it envisioned no discussion
with Luther, but ordered Cajetan to obtain Luther s arrest under any cir-
cumstances and by eveiy possible means; it threatened with excommuni-
cation everyone who might help Luther or interfere with his arrest. This
breve was issued on August 23, 1518; see WA 2, 23 ff.; LW 31, 286 f.
In view of the situation at the Diet of Augsburg (see p. 84, n. 4), Cajetan
requested the Curia to change its planned procedure against Luther. As
a result a second breve was issued on September 11, permitting a hearing
but no discussion between the Legate and Luther; see LW 31, 256 .

LETTERS

tioned to me, and of which you have recently sent a copy; when
I stopped in Niimberg on my way back it was delivered to me,
together with other letters of instruction. 14 [It must be diabolic]
for it is unbelievable that such a monstrosity should have been
released by a pope, especially by Leo X. Therefore whoever that
worthless wretch was who, under the name of Leo X, set out to
frighten me with such a decree— he will come to understand that
I can recognize nonsense. If it really was issued by the Curia, then
I will teach them a lesson [by showing them] their impudent
temerity and unheard-of ignorance. 15

The Cardinal Legate has settled everything marvelously in his
own mind; yet I strongly suspect that the Romans 16 are begin-
ning to be afraid and to put little trust in their own case. Conse-
quently they are painfully searching for loopholes. I shall report
other details, and I hope in person. Remember me to the Sover-
eign; assure him of my grateful thoughts.

In concluding, since the Sovereign’s good reputation is your
responsibility, inform him of the arrival of the Father Licentiate,
the prior of the Carmelites at Augsburg. 17 He treated me beyond
the call of duty with great generosity and kindness. In many ways
he is worthy that we treat him in like manner and thus show our
grateful appreciation. He left Augsburg the twenty-third of Octo-
ber. He came, as he says, in the hope that his graduation expenses
would be paid by our Sovereign, 18 as promised. If the Sovereign

14 It seems that Luther arrived in Niimberg on October 23 or 24; see WA,
Br 1, 226, n. 8. The “letters of instruction” could not be identified.

16 In view of the complexity of the indulgence issue; see p. 44; p. 74, n. 8.
16 1.e., the Italian churchmen. The relations between the Italian Catholics,
who considered themselves to be sophisticated, and those of the northern
countries were often far less than cordial. See, for instance, Luther's remark
to Cardinal Cajetan that the Italians take it for granted that the Germans
are ignorant of philology (see p. 86), or Luthers remarks concerning the
impressions he got during his visit to Rome of the piety of the Italian clergy
(see Bainton, pp. 49 f.).

17 John Frosch was prior of the monastery where Luther stayed while in
Augsburg; see p. 88. He had studied in Wittenberg, where he was grad-
uated as a Licentiate in Theology in 1516. After a short stay in Augsburg,
he returned to finish his studies for the theological doctorate, which he
obtained on November 22, 1518; see WA, Br 1, 226, n. 10.

18 As a patron the Elector often underwrote the administrative expenses of
doctoral graduations and the expenses of the traditional banquet which
followed tne academic portion of the graduation exercises. He had done so
in Luther’s case (see S-J 1, 26); during his visit to the Diet of Augsburg

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 25, 1518

has promised this, I don't mind contacting you about it; no doubt
all will be done. Please see to it that everything the Father
Licentiate is expecting is done with all propriety, etc.

Farewell in Christ.

October 31. 1 had hoped that you and the Sovereign would
be here today, but I was wrong, and hurried in vain. 19

Wittenberg , 1518 Friar Martin Luther

Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, November 25, 1518

Expecting to be banned by the church and exiled from Wit-
tenberg , Luther discusses certain documents in connection with the
aftermath of his meeting with Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br I, 253.

To my George Spalatin, an excellent and most learned man,
my dearest friend in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. I am returning the letter which is supposed to have
come from the Bishop of Liege, 1 my Spalatin, together with the
one from Crotus. 2 Please take care that the Most Illustrious Sover-

(see p. 70, n. 1), the Elector must have promised Frosch to underwrite his
graduation expenses, and Frosch now came in the hope that this promise
would be kept.

19 1.e., on the journey back from Augsburg.

1 Luther is referring to a letter supposedly written by Erard de la Marck,
bishop of Liege, to Emperor Maximilian and the Diet of Augsburg in 1518,
in which corruption within the church is sharply criticized; the actual
author, however, is unknown. For the bibliography of this letter, see WA,
Br 1, 253, n. 1; for the text, see St. L. 15, 466 ff. On Erard de la Marck,
see Allen 3, 738, Introduction.

2 It is difficult to identify this letter; for possibilities, see WA, Br 1, 254,
n. 2. On the Humanist Crotus Rubeanus, see p. 143, n. 7.

LETTERS

eign 8 sees the memorandum [drawn up jointly by the University
administration and myself]. 4 I am waiting for your criticisms of
my Answer 5 to the Legates letter, unless perhaps you think it
should not be written at all. My Proceedings 6 are already being
published. Besides that, I daily expect the condemnation from
the city of Rome; 7 therefore I am setting things in order and
arranging everything so that if it comes I am prepared and girded
to go, as Abraham, 8 not knowing where, yet most sure of my way,
because God is everywhere. But I will of course leave a farewell
letter; see to it that you have the courage to read the letter of a
man who is condemned and excommunicated.

Farewell for now, and pray for me.

November 25, 1518 Martin Luther

Augustinian

3 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

4 After the collapse of negotiations at Augsburg, the papal legate Cajetan
(see p. 73, n. 3) wrote to Elector Frederick on October 24, 1518, giving
his version of the unsuccessful meetings with Luther and demanding that
Luther, as a heretic, be turned over to the authorities of the church or
exiled from Electoral Saxony; for Cajetan' s letter, see WA, Br 1, No. 110,
Document I. The Elector forwarded a copy of Cajetan’s letter to Luther
and ordered him to reply; see note 5. On November 22 or 23, the Uni-
versity of Wittenberg sent an official petition to the Elector asking him not
to yield to Cajetan's request but rather to support Luther in his demand to
be shown his error on the basis of Scripture and the ancient Fathers. This
petition was written for the University by Luther himself, yet it bears cor-
rections and additions by another hand, perhaps that of the president of
the University, Bartholomew Bemhardi (see p. 95, n. 1). This is the
“memorandum” to which Luther refers. See WA, Br 1, 254, n. 3; for the
text, see EA War. arg. 2, 426 ff.; S-J 1, 131 f.

5 After Elector Frederick had received Cajetan's letter (mentioned in note
4), he forwarded it to Luther asking for a reply. Luthers Answer (WA,
Br 1, No. 110, Document II) was actually intended to be forwarded by the
Elector to the Papal Legate. The Elector did attach it, together with the
petition of the University of Wittenberg (also mentioned in note 4), to his
reply to Cajetan; for the Elector's letter, see WA, Br 1, No. 110, Document
III. Luther is now asking for Spalatin's reaction to this Answer he had
written for the Elector.

6 Acta Augustana ( Proceedings at Augsburg ) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg,
1518). WA 2, 6 ff.; LW 31, 259 ff. Luther is referring to the first printed
sheets of this work, which were completed at the beginning of December.

7 See p. 90, n. 2.

3 Gen. 12:4; Heb. 11:8. See pp. 88, 90.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, DECEMBER 9, 1518

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, December 9, 1518

While Luthers trial was dragging on, he worked on the reorganiza-
tion of the University curriculum. In this letter he is seeking
approval of a plan to drop some courses in Thomistic studies in
favor of a course in Ovid.

See pp. 41, 82. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 262.

To my dearest George Spalatin, patron of studies and culture

Jesus

Greetings. The President 1 2 and I agreed, my George, on several
things concerning the curriculum: it seems to be good not only
to eliminate the course on Thomistic Physics 2 (which is now being
dropped by Master Gunckel, who is taking over the President's
reading course), 3 but also to eliminate the course on Thomistic
logic, 4 which is now taught by Master Premsel from Torgau. 5 6
Instead the same master is to lecture on Ovids Metamorphoses*
since he is well qualified to teach classical literature. For we

1 Bartholomew Bernhardi was then president ( rector ) of the University;
see p. 115, n. 21.

2 A course on St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Ta peri
physeos ( Eight Books on Physics).

3 A reading course in Aristotelian texts. The President was planning to
leave the teaching of philosophy for the teaching of theology, while also
dedicating himself to his duties at Kemberg; see p. 115, n. 21. John Gunckel
was graduated from Wittenberg University as Master of Arts in 1507 and
had taught there since 1509 on the Faculty of Liberal Arts. In 1525 he
was elected to an office similar to that of a controller of a present-day uni-
versity; he died in 1535. See WA, Br 1, 262, n. 1.

4 A course on St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Peri hermeneias
(On Interpretation) and Analytika ystera (Posterior Analytics ).

5 James Premsel of Torgau was graduated from Wittenberg University as
Master of Arts in 1512 and had taught there on the Faculty of Liberal Arts
since 1516. In later years he switched to the teaching of medicine; he
died in 1543; see WA, Br 1, 263, n. 3.

6 The Metamorphoses by the Roman classical poet Ovid (43? b.c.-a.d. 17?).
See O.C.D., pp. 630 f.

LETTERS

consider the course on Scotistic philosophy and logic, together
with the reading course in Physics and logic, 7 to be enough until
such time as the Chair of the Scotistic Sect 8 — that equally useless
and unfruitful occupation of gifted men— is also abolished. 9 In
this way the subtle hair-splitting finally may perish altogether,
and genuine philosophy, theology, and all the arts may be drawn
from their true sources. We would appreciate your advice in this
matter.

Farewell.

December 9, 1518

Friar Martin Eleutherius 10

To Elector Frederick 1

Altenburg, in the morning of January 5 or 6, 1519

The Diet of Augsburg in 1518 had already dealt with the matter
of a successor to Emperor Maximilian I. The Emperors death on

7 A reading course in the texts of Aristotle’s Physics and his works on logic
(see notes 2, 4).

8 The Scotists, opponents of the Thomists, were the followers of Duns Scotus
( 1264P-1308 ) . Next to St. Thomas Aquinas (see O.D.C.C., pp. 1352 f.)
and St. Albertus Magnus (see O.D.C.C., p. 30), Scotus (see O.D.C.C.,
pp. 426 f.) was the most famous Scholastic theologian. In the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, however, the struggles between Thomists ( see
p. 81, n. 4) and Scotists decreased in importance and were replaced by the
philosophical warfare between the via antiqua, represented by the Thomists
and Scotists, and the via moderna, taught by the followers of William of
Occam ( 1300P-1349?; see O.D.C.C., pp. 1462 f.); see also p. 59, n. 19.
Wittenberg was at first a center of the via antiqua. Under Luther’s influence,
most of the courses that were dear to the members of the via antiqua were
gradually eliminated, giving way to Humanistic studies. See Schwiebert,
pp. 275 ff., 297 ff.; ARG 49 ( 1958), 60 ff.

9 Luther was aware that the Humanistic reforms of the curriculum could not
all be achieved at once.

10 See p. 55, n. 12.

1 The autographs of this and letter No. 32 do not give the place from where
Luther wrote, nor do they give an addressee. Addressees and place have to
be inferred from the contents of the letters. The exact dating oi these letters
depends on whether the meetings with von Miltitz took place January 4 and
5 or 5 and 6, and this cannot be definitely established. See WA, Br 1, Nos.
128, 129, Introductions.

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, JANUARY 5 OR 6, 1519

January 12, 1519, made the election of a new ruler, who would
be de facto emperor, immediately necessary . The Curia had its
own very definite ideas about this election (see Grimm, pp. 116
ff.), for which it needed Elector Frederick's support . This turn
in events caused the Curia quite abruptly to reverse its tough
policies toward Luther (see p. 91, n. 13; p. 94, n. 4) and to pursue
a comparatively mild course of action against him as the protege
of the Elector. To gain the good will and support of the Elector,
the Curia dispatched a special envoy, Charles von Miltitz. At the
same time and of his own accord, von Miltitz embarked on a
campaign to settle the case of Luther. This letter is Luther's
official report of his first meeting with von Miltitz at Altenburg.

See Fife, pp. 307 ff.; Schwiebert, pp. 370 ff. On Elector
Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

Text in German : WA, Br 1, 289-291.

Jesus

Most Serene, Noble Sovereign, Most Gracious Lord: I am dis-
turbed that Your Electoral Grace is drawn so deeply into my
affair and trouble. 2 But since necessity and God will it so, I
beseech Your Electoral Grace to deal with it in grace and favor
toward me.

Sir Charles von Miltitz 3 sharply accused me yesterday of
having committed offense and outrage against the Roman church.

1 have offered most humbly to do all in my power to atone for
this. I now beseech Your Electoral Grace to consider my sug-
gestions, 4 which I am herewith making known to your Electoral
Grace, since I want to make some definite proposals to you.

1. I was willing to promise henceforth to be silent in regard
to this affair 5 and to let it bleed to death by itself (if the opposing

2 For similar statements, see pp. 69, 81.

3 Charles von Miltitz ( 1490P-1529), a Saxon noble, held relatively minor
positions at the Curia. Thanks to his family connections, however, he was
entrusted with the delicate mission of keeping Elector Frederick from giving
his electoral vote to Charles of Spain in the forthcoming Imperial election.
The Curia wanted to flatter Frederick by decorating him with the Golden
Rose, which von Miltitz was to present.

4 Luther made these suggestions during the meeting with von Miltitz at
Altenburg on the previous day.

8 The controversy on indulgences as stirred up by Luther's Ninety-five Theses.

LETTERS

side would be silent too). For it seems to me that if one would
have let my writing go unhindered, everything would have been
quiet long ago. The song would have been sung, and everyone
would have become tired of it. 6 I am worried that this affair
really will blow up into the open and the skirmishing turn into
fighting if this proposal for settlement is not accepted and one
continues to fight with swords or words, for I still have my
reserves intact. Therefore I consider it best that one should let
the matter rest at this point.

2. I was willing to write 7 to His Papal Holiness 8 and submit
myself with greatest humility. I wanted to confess that I had
been too passionate and sharp, yet that I did not intend to dis-
parage the holy Roman church with this tone; I wanted to show
the reason why I, a faithful child of the church, had fought
against the blasphemous preaching 9 which has brought the Roman
church great scorn, slander, dishonor, and scandal among people.

3. I was willing to issue [a little book] 10 to admonish every-
one to follow the Roman church, to be obedient and respect it,
and to understand my writings as having been intended to bring
not dishonor but honor to the holy Roman church. [In this little
book] I also wanted to confess that I had pointed out the truth
too heatedly and brought it to the attention of the public at what
was perhaps the wrong time. [I wanted to demonstrate] that
while the issue is quite important, I have done enough, and that
in this matter it is sufficient for everyone to know the proper
difference between indulgences and good works. 11

4. Master Spalatin 12 proposed, upon the recommendation of
Sir Fabian von Feilitzsch, 13 that the matter be referred to the

6 In later years Erasmus of Rotterdam held a similar view; see Allen 8,
2315; 9, 2443, 2445.

7 For this letter, see p. 100.

8 Pope Leo X; see p. 100.

8 The preaching of the indulgence commissioners; see pp. 46 ff.

10 Luther wrote zcedell , i.e., a little piece of paper. He published this little
book in February, 1519; see WA 2, 69 ff.

11 For a similar statement, see p. 47.

12 George Spalatin; see pp. 8 f.

13 Fabian von Feilitzsch ( who is not to be confused with Philip von
Feilitzsch, the Electoral Saxon councilor who had assisted Luther in Augs-
burg; see p. 85, n. 8) attended the meetings as the Elector's representative.

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, JANUARY 5 OR 6, 1519

Reverend, etc.. Archbishop of Salzburg ; 14 I should accept his
decision, if it be drawn up with the help of learned and unprej-
udiced men ; 15 if I could not accept it, however, I could return
to my appeal . 16 This way the case would be pending before a
court, and would develop by itself. But I am afraid that the
Pope will not permit any judge; consequently I shall also not
acknowledge the Pope’s verdict. If [this] first proposal for settle-
ment is not accepted, then this matter will develop in such a
way that the Pope will dictate the conditions, and I shall comment
on them. That would not be good.

I discussed the proposals with Sir Charles [von Miltitz], who
thinks they do not go far enough. On the other hand he did not
demand recantation; so we parted for further deliberation. If Your
Electoral Grace knows of anything else that I should do, for the
sake of God let me know Your Electoral Grace’s gracious will.

14 Apparently the reference is to Matthew Lang of Augsburg (1468-1540),
who was at that time, however, only coadjutor of Salzburg. He had studied
in Ingolstadt, Tubingen, and Vienna and joined the Imperial chancellory
in 1494. As a member of the chancellory he became one of the great
politicians of his time and made himself indispensable. His diplomatic
shrewdness, which he used most successfully in the service of Emperor
Maximilian and to his own advantage, made him rise to the highest ec-
clesiastical positions in the Empire: from 1505 to 1523 he was bishop of
Gurk/Carinthia, in 1512 he became coadjutor of Salzburg, in 1519 arch-
bishop of Salzburg, and in 1529 primate of the Roman Catholic Church
of Germany. As an ecclesiastical sovereign he successfully resisted all
interference from the rising territorial state in the administrative affairs of
the church. When Charles V came to power in 1519 Lang gradually
disappeared from the active diplomatic service of the Empire (see p. 217)
and dedicated himself almost exclusively to his administrative duties in
Salzburg, though this shift should not be considered an indication that his
power and prestige were declining. Lang was a typical representative of
the Renaissance church. Humanistically inclined, he supported Reuchlin
against the Dominicans (see p. 9). Apparently for this reason Luther sug-
gested Lang for the position of impartial judge (see above). Later on,
however, Luther's opinion of Lang changed; see p. 359. Lang worked
hard for the reform of the church, especially in the fields of moral and
religious education of the laity and the theological education of the
clergy. He was ruthless, however, in putting down any attempt to introduce
the Reformation into his archdiocese, and during the Diet of Augsburg
(1530) he strongly urged the Emperor to put an end to the Reformation
by means of military force. It is interesting to observe that in 1520 Erasmus
suggested a plan to Elector Frederick which was almost the same as the
one discussed by Luther and von Miltitz at Altenburg; see W. K. Ferguson
(ed.), Erasmi Opuscula (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1933), p. 336.

15 For this plan, see pp. 104, 109, 127 ff., 195 f., 201 f., 208.

16 On the appeal, see p. 90, nn. 4, 5.

LETTERS

I shall be glad to do anything and to suffer everything if only
I am no longer called upon to drag this matter out into the public.
But there is positively no chance of a revocation.

Your Electoral Grace’s dedicated priest.
Doctor Martin

To Pope Leo X

Altenburg, January 5 or 6, 1519

One of the topics discussed at the meetings between Luther and
Miltitz at Altenburg on January 5 or 6, 1519 (see p. 97), was a
letter of apology to the Tope from Luther. This letter is the draft
of that letter , which, however, was never sent , since von Miltitz
offered to write to the Pope himself .

Leo X (pope 1513-1521), a member of the famous Medici
family, was, like his predecessor Julius II, a typical representative
of the Renaissance. His main interest was the political, economic,
and cultural growth of the papal state and the Medici family. As
a result he was more a politician than a priest, and was totally
incapable of understanding Luther, whose case he had to handle.
See O.D.C.C., pp. 798 f.; Bainton, pp. 74 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 292-293.

Draft of the letter to the Lord Pope 1

Most Holy Father: Necessity again 2 * * forces me, the lowest of all
men and dust of the earth , 8 to address myself to Your Holiness
and August Majesty. May Your Holiness therefore be most gracious
and deign to lend your ears in a fatherly fashion for a short time,
and willingly listen to the bleating of this, your little sheep, for you
truly stand in the place of Christ.

1 This sentence is written in German.

2 Luther had sent his Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses to the Pope

through John von Staupitz on May 30, 1518; see pp. 64 ff.

8 Isa. 49:6 (Vulgate).

100

TO POPE LEO X, JANUARY 5 OR 6, 1519

The honorable Sir Charles Miltitz, chamber secretary to Your
Holiness, has been with us . 4 In the presence of the Most Illustrious
Sovereign Frederick 5 he very harshly accused me in the name of
Your Holiness of lacking respect for and being rash toward the
Roman church and Your Holiness, and demanded satisfaction for
this. Hearing this, I was deeply grieved that my most loyal service
has had such an unhappy outcome and that what I had under-
taken— to guard the honor of the Roman church— had resulted in
disgrace and was suspected of all wickedness, even so far as the
head of the church was concerned. But what am I to do. Most
Holy Father? I do not know what to do further: I cannot bear
the power of your wrath, and I do not know of any means to
escape it. The demand is made that I recant my theses . 6 If such
a revocation could accomplish what I was attempting to do with
my theses, I would issue it without hesitation. Now, however,
through the antagonism and pressure of enemies, my writings are
spread farther than I ever had expected and are so deeply rooted
in the hearts of so many people that I am not in the position to
revoke them. In addition since our Germany prospers wonderfully
today with men of talent, learning, and judgment, I realize that
I cannot, under any circumstances, recant anything if I want to
honor the Roman church— and this has to be my primary concern.
Such a recanting would accomplish nothing but to defile the Roman
church more and more and bring it into the mouths of the people
as something that should be accused. See, Father, those whom I
have opposed have inflicted this injury and virtual ignominy on
the Roman church among us. With their most insipid sermons,
preached in the name of Your Holiness, they have cultivated only
the most shameful avarice and have substituted for sanctification

4 See p. 97. Luther does not make it clear when the meeting between von
Miltitz and the Elector (referred to by Luther in the following lines) took
place. On December 29, 1518, Elector Frederick wrote to Duke George
of Saxony (see p. 110, n. 20), *T have with me a papal ambassador, Charles
von Miltitz, who is not satisfied with Doctor Luther and has great power
to proceed against him. And it might well happen that he would refuse
to give me the Golden Rose [see p. 97, n. 3] unless I banished the monk
and said that he was a heretic.” See Akten und Briefe 1, 51; S-J 1, 143.

5 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

6 The Ninety-five Theses; see p. 49, n. 22.

101

LETTERS

the vile and abominable Egyptian scandal . 7 And as if that had
not been bad enough, they accuse me before Your Holiness— me,
who opposed their tremendous monstrosities— of being the author
of the temerity which is theirs.

Most Holy Father, before God and all his creation, I testify
that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any
way the authority of the Roman church and of Your Holiness or
demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the
authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing,
be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one
Jesus Christ who is Lord of all— nor should Your Holiness believe
the schemers who claim otherwise, plotting evil against this Martin.

Since in this case I can do only one thing, I shall most will-
ingly promise Your Holiness that in the future I shall leave this
matter of indulgences alone, and will be completely silent con-
cerning it (if [my enemies] also stop their vain and bombastic
speeches). In addition I shall publish something 8 for the common
people to make them understand that they should truly honor the
Roman church, and influence them to do so. [I shall tell them] not
to blame the church for the rashness of [those indulgence
preachers], nor to imitate my sharp words against the Roman
church, which I have used— or rather misused— against those
clowns , 0 and with which I have gone too far. Perhaps by the
grace of God the discord which has arisen may finally be quieted
by such an effort. I strive for only one thing: that the Roman
church, our Mother, be not polluted by the filth of unsuitable
avarice, and that the people be not led astray into error and taught
to prefer indulgences to works of love . 10 All the other things I
consider of less importance, since they are matters of indifference.
If I can do anything else, or if I discover that there is something
else I can do, I will certainly be most ready to do it . 11

7 Josh. 5:9.

8 See p. 98, n. 10.

9 The indulgence commissioners; see pp. 45 ff., 98.

10 For similar statements, see pp. 47, 98.

11 The printed editions of this letter add some sentences which have to
be translated: "May Christ preserve your Holiness forever. From Altenburg
[a wrong date is added here], 1519. Friar Martin Luther, D.” See WA,
Br 1, No. 129, Introduction.

102

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, JANUARY 13? TO 19?, 1519

To Elector Frederick 1

Wittenberg, between January 13 and 19, 1519

Luther discusses a memorandum on settling his case as prepared
by the papal envoy Charles von Miltitz for Elector Frederick. He
outlines the circumstances under which he could recant and
scrutinizes a new papal decretal concerning indulgences.

On Elector Frederick , see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: WA, Br 1, 306-308; translation based on S-J 1,
153-155.

Jesus

Most Serene, Noble Sovereign, Most Gracious Lord: To be of
humble service to Your Electoral Grace, I herewith give my opinion
and judgment concerning the articles and proposals for settling
the weighty matter between me and the papal indulgences, which
were forwarded to me by Your Electoral Grace. 2

1. I am ready to honor the Roman church in all humility and
to place nothing in heaven or on earth above it, save only God
himself and his word. Therefore I am willing to recant at what-
ever point my error is demonstrated. However to recant every-
thing indiscriminately is impossible.

2. I am not only willing to endure the fact that I may never
again preach or teach, but I even wish never again to do so. For
I derive no pleasure or enjoyment, wealth or honor from it. I also

1 On the controversial dating of this letter, see WA, Br 1, No. 136, Introduc-
tion. Although the letter does not show an addressee, the contents makes it
clear to whom Luther was writing.

2 After the meeting with Luther at Altenburg (see p. 97), Charles von
Miltitz (see p. 97, n. 3) had a conference with Elector Frederick. Von
Miltitz drew up a memorandum in which he listed the following points:
( 1 ) Luther should humbly and obediently subordinate himself to the
church and respectfully acknowledge its authority. (2) Should Luther refuse
to do this, then the Elector should prevent him from preaching and teaching.

(3) Impartial judges, whom Luther would recognize, should hear his case.

(4) See note 5, below. (5) The decretal (see note 9) is the church’s
answer to Luther; therefore Luther can no longer complain that the church
does not want to listen to him or does not want to instruct him. Rome has
spoken, therefore Luther ought to be silent. Luther is now commenting on
these five points. For the text of the memorandum, see St. L. 15, 693 f.

203

LETTERS

well know that the preaching of God's word is an intolerable task
on this earth. But in this matter I always have been and I am
still subordinated to God's command and will.

3. It is my greatest desire to have an impartial judge in this
case, 3 and this would be of advantage to me. For this task I also
nominate the Most Reverend in God, etc., Archbishop of Trier, or
the one of Salzburg, or perhaps the Serene Lord, etc., Philip, bishop
of Freising and Naumburg. 4

4. For a long time I have been stirred by the thought that
in the time of Pope Julius nine cardinals with all their followers
were unable to accomplish anything, and that also emperors and
kings were often humiliated. 5 On the other hand I have been
strengthened by the firm conviction that the Roman church would
not, and would have no desire to, tolerate or even permit or defend
the inept and harmful sermons which are pointed out by my
theses on indulgences, 6 nor would it allow Christ's poor people to
be led astray by the glitter of indulgences.

One need not be too much astonished if now one or two men
are suppressed in these evil latter times, 7 since we know that in

3 See pp. 98 f.

4 Luther now also nominates Richard von Greiffenklau, archbishop of Trier,
and the Count Palatine Philip, who was bishop both of Naumburg and of
Freising. Luther did not mention them in his official report on the meeting
with von Miltitz at Altenburg (see p. 99); nevertheless the Archbishop of
Trier also must have been considered, since in a later report on this Alten-
burg meeting Luther mentioned only the Archbishop of Trier; see p. 127.

5 The fourth point of the memorandum was the challenging question to the
Elector whether he would dare to continue to protect Luther against the
pope, whose superior power had so recently been demonstrated in the case
of Louis XII and Maximilian versus Julius II. Luther is referring to this.
The circumstances were the following: "At the request of Emperor Maxi-
milian and Louis XII of France, a council was held in Pisa and Milan in
1511 and 1512 with the aim of reforming the head, in this case Pope
Julius II, and the members of the church. Although cited to appear before
the council, Julius did not attend. Instead, Julius called his own council,
the Fifth Lateran Council, whose sessions were held in Rome at various
intervals from 1512 to 1517. Ultimately the papal council triumphed over
its contemporary rival at Pisa and Milan so that Julius' successor, Leo X,
was able to adjourn the sessions in Rome. Instead of being checked, papal
prestige and authority were strengthened" (H. J. Grimm). LW 31, 285, n. 35.

6 The Ninety-five Theses; see p. 49, n. 22.

7 It was Luther's conviction, along with many of his contemporaries, that
the age in which his generation lived was of the "last” or “latter" time.
According to apocalyptic thought it was an evil time in which the Anti-
christ (see p. 114, n. 16) would almost triumph before his final defeat.

104

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, JANUARY 13? TO 19?, 1519

the time of Arius, the heretic, when the holy church was still new
and pure, all bishops were driven out of their churches, and the
heretics, with the support of the whole empire, persecuted even
St. Athanasius throughout the whole world. 8 If God decreed such
a thin g for the church in those blessed times, then I am not much
surprised if I am to be defeated too, poor man that I am. But
the truth has remained here and will remain forever.

5. The new decretal just issued at Rome concerning the
matter of indulgences 9 seems to me very peculiar. In the first
place, it offers nothing new; secondly, it reproduces the old ma-
terial in language which is almost more confusing and incompre-
hensible than that of previous decretals. Thirdly, it does not
nullify the other papal laws on which I have built my case, and
thus does not resolve the contradictions in the matter. Fourthly,
and this is the most important point, it does not, as all other laws
usually do, cite some passages of Scripture, the Fathers, or Canon
Law, or give any logical argument, but offers only empty words
which do not deal with my problem, nor does it reply in any way
to my writings or requests. 10

Since the church ought to give a basis for its doctrine, as St.
Peter commands, 11 and is forbidden in many ways to accept any-
thing unless it is tested, as St. Paul states, 12 I cannot acknowledge
such a decretal as a firm and sufficient doctrine of the holy church.
I must rather obey God’s commandments and prohibitions. Al-
though I will not reject it, yet I also will not bow down before it.

I am also afraid, Gracious Lord, since in these our present
times Scripture and the ancient Fathers are being brought to the
fore again and men everywhere begin now to question not what ,

8 In 325 the Council of Nicaea, supported by Emperor Constantine, con-
demned Arius for his conviction that Christ was not of the same essence
as God the Father. In the years following Nicaea, the Arians were con-
tinually harassed throughout the Roman Empire. Under Constantine's
successors, Athanasius and his followers, who had successfully led the battle
against the Arians, were sharply persecuted. See O.D.C.C., pp. 80 f., 100.

9 This is the papal bull Cum postquam of November 9, 1518, which was
issued after the collapse of the negotiations at Augsburg; see p. 87. It defines
and affirms the theory of indulgences in terms which were opposed by
Luther. For the text, see Denzinger, No. 740 a.

10 See p. 69; p. 74, n. 7.

11 1 Pet. 3:15.

!2I Thess. 5:21.

105

LETTERS

but why this or that is said, 13 if I would recant on the basis of
these mere words, it would not only be unbelievable but also
would be considered mockery and a public disgrace to the Roman
church. What the Roman church says and does without [scriptural]
foundation is not given a basis by my recanting.

On my honor, I want to tell Your Grace that regardless of
[my] reputation, I am willing to recant if only I can hear the
basis of my error, or of their truth. If I do not have this and am
ever forced to recant, I would do it only in words, and this would
mean that at the same time I believe differently in my heart. And
this would be a disgrace to them. 14

Your Electoral Graces dedicated servant,

D. Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, February 7, 1519

Luther again asks Spalatin for his co-operation regarding changes
in the academic curriculum . In addition he reports on the latest
events regarding the pending disputation between Eck and Karl -
stadt.

See pp. 41 , 95 f. On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br 1, 325 .

To my excellent and dearest friend George Spalatin,
honored in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. I hope, my Spalatin, you bear not only with a patient
but also a thankful heart the fact that we are concerned with our
University and weigh you down with its business. I repeat, there-

13 Due to the influence of Christian Humanism. This passage indirectly
refers to the theology taught at the University of Wittenberg; see p. 42;
see also pp. 86, 101.

14 I.e., those who would force Luther to recant.

106

TO GEORGE SPALATTN, FEBRUARY 7, 1519

fore, that we recently 1 acted on the elimination of those courses
by which precious horns are wasted and on the substitution of
better ones, especially a course on Ovids Metamorphoses . We
also acted on a salary increase for our Philip, 2 and we added to
his salary the amount paid for the course in Physics 3 which we
dropped. I believe I have mentioned [all this] to you. 4 Now, lest
the iron cool, 5 or be discarded as scrap iron, as one says, we
ask you to complete what the Lord has begun through you, so
that no bad fortune intervene and bring such a praiseworthy plan
to naught

Besides this, our Eck, 6 that little glory-hungry beast, has pub-
lished a small sheet of paper regarding his planned debate with
Karlstadt at Leipzig after Easter. That foolish man obliquely at-
tempts to satisfy his long-standing grudge against me; naming one
person as contestant yet attacking someone else who has to handle
the whole affair, he storms against me and my writings. I am
fed up with that man's senseless deceit. As a result I, too, have
published a refutation against him, as you will see from the en-
closed printed material. This may, perhaps, be an occasion for
Eck finally to treat this matter seriously, instead of as a game, as
heretofore, and thus ill serve the Roman tyranny.

Farewell in the Lord.

February 7, 1519 Friar Martin Luther

Augustinian

1 See pp. 95 f.

2 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

8 I.e., the course on St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Physics;
see p. 95, n. 2.

4 In letter No. 30, to which Luther refers, he did not mention this salary
increase. See also p. 78.

5 Cf. the English saying, “Strike while the iron is hot.” See also S. Singer,
Sprichworter des Mitteualters (Bern: Lang and Cie, 1944 ff.), I, 95 f.

6 Eck (see p. 80, n. 13) published twelve theses in December, 1518, which
he intended to debate with Karlstadt (see p. 79, n. 12) in the upcoming
disputation in Leipzig (see p. 126). Eck's theses naming Karlstadt as con-
testant dealt not with Karlstadt's theology but with Luther's. Luther there-
fore wrote a letter of protest to Karlstadt (see WA, Br 1, No. 142) and pub-
lished it with his own countertheses (see WA 2, 158 f.) in February, 1519.
He is now sending this material to Spalatin.

LETTERS

To John von Staupitz
Wittenberg, February 20, 1519

Luther reproaches von Staupitz for his long silence. He also reports
on the tactics of von Miltitz (see pp. 103 ff.), TetzeTs disappearance ,
the publication of his own collected works, and the maneuvering
involved in preparations for the pending Disputation at Leipzig .
On von Staupitz, see p . 64, n. 1.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 344-345.

To the Reverend and excellent Father John Staupitz,
vicar of the Eremites of St. Augustine, 1 my patron and
superior, honored in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. Even though you are so far away and silent. Reverend
Father, and do not write to us who are eager to hear from you, 2
I shall nevertheless break the silence. I wish— all of us wish—
finally to see you in this part of the country. 3

I believe my Proceedings 4 have reached you, [and that you
thus know of] the Roman wrath and indignation. God is impelling
me, driving me on, rather than leading me. I cannot master myself;
I want to be calm, yet I am driven into the midst of uproar.®

Charles Miltitz has seen me at Altenburg. 6 He complained
that I have pulled the whole world to my side and alienated it
from the Pope. 7 He said he had explored all the inns and dis-
covered that among five people there are hardly three or two who
favored the Roman party. I later heard from the Sovereign’s
court 8 that he was armed with seventy apostolic breves for the

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 Literally: “. . . you do not write a highly anticipated letter to those
who are waiting ....**

8 Von Staupitz stayed in Salzburg all winter; see p. 72.

4 Luther's report on the hearings before Cardinal Cajetan; see p. 94, n. 6.

B For similar statements, see pp. 110, 152, 162, 194.

6 See p. 97.

7 Pope Leo X; see p. 100. 8 Perhaps through Spalatin; see pp. 8 f .

108

TO JOHN VON STAUPIT2, FEBRUARY 20, 1519

purpose of bringing me as a prisoner to that murderous Jerusalem,
that Babylon clothed in purple . 9 Because this project proved to
be hopeless, he began to push me to restore to the Roman church
that of which I had deprived it, and to recant. When I requested,
however, to be informed of what I should recant, we finally agreed
that the case should be referred to several bishops. I nominated
the archbishops of Salzburg, Trier, and Freising . 10 He entertained
me in the evening, we had a good time at the dinner, he kissed me,
and so we parted. I pretended not to see through this Italian act
and insincerity. He also summoned Tetzel and loudly upbraided
him. Finally at Leipzig he proved to [Tetzel] that he [Tetzel]
had had ninety gulden income per month and in addition three
horsemen and a wagon with all expenses paid . 11 Now Tetzel has
disappeared and nobody knows where he has gone , 12 except per-
haps the fathers of his Order . 18

Finally my Eck, that deceitful man, is again dragging me
into a new controversy, as you can see from the enclosure . 14 Thus

®I.e., Rome; this is an allusion to Rev. 17:3-0. See also pp. 127 ff.

10 See pp. 98 f., 104, 127 ff.

11 John Tetzel (see p. 45) by now had fallen into general disgrace, actually
through no fault of his own. Not only Luther thundered against him, but
also his own former “employer” in the indulgence business, the Archbishop
of Mainz, turned against him. From Spalatin or other friends at court,
Luther apparently had heard of this censure of Tetzel’s expense account,
since von Miltitz had written of it to Pfeffinger, the Electoral Saxon treasurer
(see p. 32, n. 28), in a letter dated January 22, 1519; see WA, Br 1, 345,
n. 0. Luther does not make it clear whether von Miltitz and Tetzel met
once or twice. If they met once, both the “upbraiding” and the censuring
of the expense account would have had to take place in Leipzig shortly
before January 22; if they met twice, then the time and place of the
“upbraiding” cannot be established, while the censure would have taken
place in Leipzig shortly before January 22, the date von Miltitz wrote
about it. A third possibility would be that von Miltitz summoned Tetzel
to come to Altenburg but Tetzel did not appear and von Miltitz then
“upbraided” the absent Tetzel in die presence of Luther. This is suggested
by Tetzel’s refusal to leave Leipzig; see note 12.

12 Especially after the incident mentioned in note 11, Tetzel had to fear
for his life. But as early as December 31, 1518, Tetzel had written to
von Miltitz that his own life was in danger, and that therefore he could
not leave Leipzig and come to Altenburg. In the letter of January 22 von
Miltitz wrote that Tetzel planned to disappear before things got worse;
see WA, Br 1, 345, n. 7.

18 Tetzel was a member of the Dominican Order. On the Dominicans,
see O.D.C.C., pp. 413 f.

14 John Eck; see p. 80, n. 13. The “again” refers to the dash concerning

109

LETTERS

the Lord sees to it that I am not idle. But Christ willing, this
debate will end sadly for Roman laws and practices, those reeds
on which Eck leans for support . 15

I wish you could see my shorter works, published at Basel , 16
so that you could realize what educated people think of me, Eck,
Sylvester , 17 and the Scholastic theologians! Those most witty fel-
lows, [the printers], by an intentional error, call Sylvester magirus
palatii instead of magister palatii ( magirus in Greek is the same
as “cook” in Latin ); 18 they needle him with other remarks that are
quite biting. This affair will be quite a blow to the Roman
dignitaries.

I beg you, pray for me, because I am quite confident that
the Lord will constrain your heart to be disturbed on my behalf.
I am a person who is both exposed to and enveloped by society
[with its] drunkenness, sarcasm, carelessness, and other annoyances,
not counting the problems which burden me on behalf of my
office.

The Faculty at Leipzig finally consented to the disputation with
Eck. They accuse me of voicing an unfounded opinion because
I had written that they have refused to allow this debate . 19 They
sent a letter to me in which they demand a retraction. But I know
from Duke George that at first they had rejected my petition . 20

Eck’s Obelisci; see p. 80, n. 14. Luther herewith encloses some of the
material mentioned on p. 107, n. 6.

15 Perhaps an allusion to Isa. 36:6 and Ezek. 29:6-7.

16 John Froben of Basel printed a collection of Luther’s Latin writings in
October of 1518, without giving the name or location of the publishing
house. He reprinted this edition in February, 1519, again anonymously.
See p. 115, n. 19.

17 Sylvester Prierias; see p. 71, n. 7; p. 72, n. 14.

18 In his edition of Luther’s works (see note 16), Froben printed Prierias’
Dialogue along with Luthers reply (see p. 72), just as Luther had done
(see p. 75). The printers changed Prierias' official position in the title of
the Dialogue from magister sacri palatii, i.e., master of the sacred palace,
to magirus sacri palatii, i.e., cook of the sacred palace. The February, 1519,
edition omits this pun.

19 It took quite some time and much writing back and forth until the
Theological Faculty of Leipzig (see p. 63, n. 24) consented to the dis-
putation (see p. 126).

20 This letter of Duke George does not seem to be extant. Saxony was
divided into two major parts: Electoral Saxony, which was then ruled by
Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.), a member of the Ernestine family; and
Ducal Saxony, which was then governed by Duke George of the Albertine
family; see Schwiebert, pp. 67 ff. Following the Leipzig Disputation (see

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MARCH 13, 1519

I wrote to them twice that their dean had previously refused my
request, which he actually did. 21 It is in such a miserable way
that these people try to prevent a disputation of this kind. But
Duke George has insisted on it. 22
Farewell, dearest Father.

February 20, 1519 Friar Martin Luther

Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, March 13, 1519

Luther reports on University business, emphasizing Melanchthons
teaching load and defending the elimination of a course in Scho-
lastic philosophy . Discussing his work, Luther mentions an expla-
nation of the Lords Prayer, the commentary on St. PauYs Epistle to
the Galatians, a treatise on Christ's sufferings, and his study of
Canon Law in preparation for the Leipzig Disputation. He com-
plains about a tenant who is slow in paying rent and comments on
various correspondence matters.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 359-360.

To Mr. George Spalatin, an excellent man and priest of Christ,
secretary to the Duke of Saxony, my friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. It will be beyond the power of our Philip, 1 my Spalatin,
to give so many courses, since he is already carrying too heavy

p. 126) Duke George became one of the most violent opponents of Luther,
although Elector Frederick continued to protect Luther.

21 This correspondence between Luther, the Theological Faculty of Leipzig,
and Duke George does not seem to be extant. For more details, see WA,
Br 1, 337 f. On the relationship between the universities of Wittenberg
and Leipzig, see p. 63, n. 24.

22 The University of Leipzig was within his territory and so his wishes
could not easily be ignored.

1 Philip Melancnthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

Ill

LETTERS

a load. Even if you think he should lecture only on alternate days,
the many responsibilities would occupy his mind no less. Moreover
Aristotle s Physics 2 3 is a completely useless subject for every age . 8
The whole book is a debate about nothing and, [as it were, begs
the question]. It is just a rhetorical exercise, having no value,
unless you want to see in it a model for oratorical practice, as if
someone were exercising his talents and skills studying and play-
ing with dung or other worthless stuff. Gods wrath has condemned
the human race to preoccupy itself with these follies for so many
centuries, and to do it even without understanding them. I know
this book inside out, since I have already explained it privately
twice to my fellow friars without using the [usual] commentaries . 4 5
As a result, I think that the [Physics lectures] should be continued
only until they can be abolished— and this had better be soon,
since an oration of Beroald 6 would be more useful by far. In
[Aristotles Physics ] there is no real knowledge of the world of
nature. His works on Metaphysics and the Soul are of the same
quality . 6 It is, therefore, unworthy of [Melanchthons] intellect
to wallow in that mire of folly. It is better that [these books] be
read (merely to fulfil the requirements of the curriculum) and not
understood than that they be understood.

I am forwarding a letter from Eck , 7 who boasts and triumphs
as if he were already a victor in the Olympics . 8 John Froben has
sent me the small collection of my works he published, and a
letter . 9 If you wish to see them, I shall send them to you.

2 See p. 95, n. 2; p. 41.

3 Replying to letter No. 30 or 34, Spalatin must have suggested that Melanch-
thon take over the course on Aristotle's Physics .

4 See p. 38, n. 9.

5 Philip Beroald the Elder (1453-1504) was a famous Humanist who
lectured on poetry, rhetorics, and classical learning in Parma, Milan, Paris,
and finally in his native Bologna.

6 Aristotle s Metaphysics and Peri psyches (On the Soul). Aristotle's Prate
philosophic was generally called Metaphysica since the treatises collected into
this work were usually placed after the Physics.

7 John Eck; see p. 80, n. 13. Luther encloses Eck's invitation ( see WA,
Br 1, No. 151 ) to participate in the disputation between himself and Karlstadt
at Leipzig in June, 1519; see p. 107, n. 6; p. 126.

8 This was Eck's hope in regard to the upcoming Disputation at Leipzig
(see p. 126).

9 See p. 110, n. 16; for the text of the letter, see WA, Br 1, No. 146;
S-J 1, 161. This was the covering letter of February 14, 1519, with which

112

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MARCH 13, 1519

I am too busy to translate my explanation of the Lords
Prayer into Latin. Each evening I expound to children and
ordinary folk the Commandments and the Lords Prayer , 10 I preach,
and I am presently getting out Pauls Epistle to the Galatians ; 11

Froben forwarded to Luther & copy of the edition of Luther's works he
had published.

10 From June, 1516, to February, 1517, Luther explained the Ten Com-
mandments to the people of Wittenberg. He published these explanations
as Decern praecepta Wittenbergensi praedicata populo ( Ten Sermons
on the Ten Commandments Preached to the People of Wittenberg) (Witten-
berg: J. Griinenberg, July, 1518). WA 1, 398 ff. In a letter of September
4, 1517, Luther apparently mentions a German version of these sermons,
which, it seems, he himself had prepared, or at least supervised; see WA,
Br 1, 103. These sermons on the Ten Commandments would have to be
considered Luther's first writing to have been translated into the vernacular.
Unfortunately this German version is not extant. In 1520 a German trans-
lation of the Latin text of 1518 was published in Basel. (Sometime during
Lent, 1518, Luther published Eine kurze Erkldrung der zehn Gebote [A
Short Explanation of the Ten Commandments ], of which only secondary
editions are now available; see WA 1, 247 ff. This small work was to serve
as a guide for self-examination in preparation for the Easter confession.)
During Lent in 1517 Luther wanted to continue his efforts to help the laity
understand the great themes of the Christian faith, so he undertook to
expound the Lord's Prayer. These homilies on the Lord's Prayer were pub-
lished in 1518 by John Agricola (see p. 220) and in 1519, in a very abbreviated
form, by Nicholas von Amsdorf (see p. 218); for the texts, see WA 9, 123 ff.,
223 ff. Unhappy with these editions, especially with the one by Agricola,
Luther decided to repeat the series of addresses on the Commandments and the
Lord's Prayer during the winter months of 1518/19, and he prepared his
notes for publication as he went along. In April, 1519, he published the
Auslegung deutsch des Vaterunsers fur die einfaltigen Laien ( German Ex-
planation of the Lord’s Prayer for Ordinary Lay People) (Leipzig: M.
Lotther, April, 1519). WA 2, 80 ff. Luther did not accede to Spalatin’s
request to translate this work into Latin. It is not known who prepared
the Latin edition of the Auslegung deutsch, which was published in 1520
by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig. In 1519 Luther also published Eine kurze
Form, das Paternoster zu verstehen und zu beten (A Brief Formula to Aid
in Understanding and Praying the LorcTs Prayer) (WA 6, 9 ff.) and Eine
kurze und gute Auslegung des Vaterunsers (A Brief and Sound Explanation
of the Loras Prayer) (WA 6, 20 ff. ). No original print of either work
is available; the first one was usually incorporated into the Kurze Form
der Zehn Gebote (see below), while the second one was added to the
Auslegung deutsch. Both works are devotional in nature and were to help
in praying the Lord's Prayer. In 1520 Luther crowned these efforts to
educate the laity with his Eine kurze Form der Zehn Gebote, des Glaubens
und des Vaterunsers (A Short Explanation of the Ten Commandments, the
Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer ), which has been rightly called a forerunner
of the Small Catechism. See WA 7, 204 ff.; PE 2, 354 ff.

11 During the winter semester of 1516/17 Luther lectured on Galatians for
the first time; see p. 30, n. 17. He reworked his notes and published them
during 1519: In epistolam Pauli ad Galatas M. Luther I commentarius

11 $

LETTERS

besides that, there are the orationes ceremoniales 12 and the lec-
tures . 18 I really do not have enough time, not to speak of spare
time. I am planning a treatise dealing with the meditation on
Christ’s passion . 14 I do not know, however, whether I shall have
enough leisure to write it out. Yet I will try hard.

In addition to this, I am studying the papal decretals for
my disputation . 15 And, confidentially, I do not know whether the
pope is the Antichrist himself 16 or whether he is his apostle, so
miserably is Christ (that is, the truth) corrupted and crucified by
the pope in the decretals. I am extremely distressed that under the
semblance of laws and the Christian name, the people of Christ
should be so deluded. One day I shall copy my notes on the
decretals 17 for you, so that you, too, may see what it is to make
laws regardless of Scripture, simply from the desire to exercise
tyranny. I don’t even mention the other works which are so very
similar to those of the Antichrist and of which the Roman Curia
has an overabundance. Daily greater and greater help and support
by virtue of the authority of Holy Scripture wells up in me.

Our Erasmus has edited an Outline and Compendium for the

( Martin Luthers Commentary on PauTs Epistle to the Galatians) (Leipzig:
M. Lotther, 1519, completed in September). WA 2, 443 ff.

12 Solemn Prayers? It is not clear what Luther meant here. Perhaps this
refers to the Hourly Prayers (see p. 28, n. 9) or to the mass, i.e., to the
prayers recited during the celebration of mass.

13 Luther was then again (see p. 18, n. 3) lecturing on the Psalms and
simultaneously preparing his notes for publication; see p. 121, n. 7.

14 E<n Sermon von der Betrachtung £es heiligen Leidens Christi (A Treatise
on the Meditation of the Holy Passion of Christ) (Wittenberg: J. Griinen-
berg, April, 1519). WA 2, 135 ff.

15 Luther studied the Canon Law (see p. 186, n. 1) to prepare himself for
the disputation with Eck (see p. 126).

16 The prince of Christ's enemies; see II Thessalonians 2; I John 2:18;
4:3; II John, vs. 7. In addition the Antichrist and his kingdom is symbolized
at various points in the book of Revelation; see Rev. 9:13; 11:7 (the Beast);
chapter 12; 13:11; 17:8. For Luther, who considered himself to be living
in die “latter” days (see p. 104, n. 7), the idea of the Antichrist was a
common one. At least since the days of John Huss, but probably even
earlier, people concerned with the reform of the church had identified the
papacy with the kingdom of the Antichrist. For more details, see H. Preuss,
Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im spdten Mittelalter, bei Luther und in
der konfessionellen Polemik (Leipzig: C. J. Hinrichsche Buchhandlung,
1906).

17 Luther's notes on the Canon Law are not extant

114

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MARCH 13, 1519

study of Scripture . 18 Froben has sent it to me . 19 Please return the
letters of Froben, Eck, and the others . 20

The President also wishes to be freed from his teaching obli-
gation, in order to be able to attend to his administrative duties
(which are jeopardized by his absence) and his pastoral office . 21
So far Christopher Bressen, who is indebted to us, has not given a
sign of himself, either in deed or in word . 22

Farewell in the Lord.

Wittenberg, March 13, 1519 Friar Martin Luther

Augustinian

I enclose a letter to the Most Illustrious Sovereign 23 concern-
ing the matter about which you wrote . 24 Please thank him on my

18 Ratio sen compendium verae theologiae ( Outline or Compendium of a
True Theology) (Basel: J. Froben, January, 1519). Clericus 5, 75 ff.; this
text is based on the 1522 edition of the Outline. This was a separate, re-
worked, and enlarged edition of one of the essays Erasmus had given as an
introduction to his 1516 edition of the New Testament (see p. 23). For a
modem edition, see pp. xx, n. 24.

19 When John Froben sent his edition of Luther’s works to Luther (see p.
112, n. 9), he also enclosed this work by Erasmus; see WA, Br 1, 331, n. 1.

20 See notes 7, 9.

21 Bartholomew Bemhardi of Feldkirch/Voralberg (1487-1551) studied at
the University of Erfurt and the University of Wittenberg, where he also
taught on the Liberal Arts Faculty. In 1512 he was dean of the Liberal
Arts Faculty. Studying theology, he became one of Luther’s students and
was graduated as Master of the Sentences in 1516. In 1518 he was elected
president of Wittenberg University. From his student days on he was a
strong supporter of Luther; while president of the University he backed
Luther with the full authority of the University (see p. 94, n. 4; p. 95).
The University had appointed Bemhardi to be provost at Kemberg, a posi-
tion from which he derived his income as a University professor without
actually residing there. In 1518 Bemhardi became a member of the The-
ological Faculty and decided to dedicate himself more to his duties at
Kemberg, and he soon settled down at Kemberg where he stayed for the
rest of his life. See also p. 342, n. 20.

22 Christopher Bressen and Gunther von Staupitz, a relative of the Vicar
General (see p. 64, n. 1), rented a farm from the monastery; both were
very slow in paying the annual rent; see WA, Br 1, 312, n. 10. Shortly
after Luther had given this letter to the messenger, Bressen paid his debt;
see Luther’s letter of April 5, 1519, to Spalatin. WA, Br 1, 367.

23 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

24 When Luther clashed with Eck (see p. 107, n. 6), von Miltitz com-
plained that Luther broke his promise to be silent (see pp. 97 f.). In his letter
to the Elector (see WA, Br 1, No. 160; S-J 1, 168 f.) Luther defends himself
against this accusation.

115

LETTERS

behalf for his most kind care. It is extraordinary that His Grace
is constantly so concerned; I am sorry about this, for I do not wish
it. I have answered Eck nothing but a few words , 25 namely, that
it is his fault, not mine, that he has the reputation of a sophist
throughout the world. I do not want to have any more dealings
with this man; he is completely faithless and has openly destroyed
the right to friendship . 26

To Erasmus of Rotterdam
Wittenberg, March 28, 1519

Two movements were especially important in shaping the religious
life of the first part of the sixteenth century: the Reformation and
Christian Humanism, of which Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466?-
1586) was the acknowledged leader. Both movements shared the
desire to return to the original sources of the Bible and the early
Fathers, on the basis of which conclusions could be drawn and
then applied to a reform of the church, the individuals faith, and
society as a whole. Luther got acquainted with Erasmus ’ work in
1516 when he used the Humanist’s Greek text of the New Testa-
ment as the basis for his biblical studies; see p. 23. Luther had a
deep respect for Erasmus’ learning but quickly realized the funda-
mental difference between his own theological position and that of
Erasmus. Although he did not hesitate to express his opinion, he
did his best not to make an issue out of this divergence ; see pp.
40, 53. Erasmus had known of Luther since the Ninety-five Theses
were spread throughout Germany (see Allen 3, 785), and it seems
that he was impressed with the Wittenberg professor; see
Allen 3, 939. However Erasmus also was aware of differences
existing between them, although for him they were more a matter

25 For the text of this letter, see WA, Br 1, No. 149.

26 This postscript was not written on the same paper as the rest of the
letter; it was a loose sheet of paper which editors added to different letters.
We follow the WA, Br editor, who attached it to this letter. For the basis
of this, see WA, Br 1, 361, n. 13.

116

TO ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM, MARCH 28, 1519

of propriety than of theology . Yet both men— and especially their
friends (see p . 122; p. 150 , n. 10; pp. 184 f.)— hoped that mutual
respect would bind them together so that they could and would
support each others program . This hope was eventually destroyed
by the development and clarification of Luthers thought and the
events of the Reformation after the Leipzig Disputation (June/ July,
1519; see p. 126). In 1524/25 Erasmus and Luther clashed on the
question of free will. This controversy brought out the differences
and clearly established the line which separated both men and
made it impossible for them to be tolerant of one another's point
of view. Depending on their denominational ties, different scholars
have characterized Erasmus' thought either as Roman Catholic or
Protestant. In either case, Erasmus is misunderstood. He was,
as the Litterae obscurorum virorum stated, “homo pro se,” an entity
unto himself (see Rocking, Supplementum 1, 279). See O.D.C.C.,
pp. 459 f.; Bainton, pp. 125 f.; Fife, pp. 416 ff.; C. R. Thompson
(ed.), lnquisitio de Fide: A Colloquy by Desiderius Erasmus
Roterodamus, 1524 ( te Yale Studies in Religion," Vol. XV [Yale
University Press, 1950]).

This letter is Luther's first direct approach to Erasmus. In
a typically Humanistic way, Luther discusses mutual problems
and seeks Erasmus' friendship.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 361-363.

Jesus 1

Greetings. I speak so often to you and you to me, my Erasmus—
our glory and hope— and yet we do not know each other personally.
Is that not most peculiar? Actually this is not strange at all,
but something that obviously happens every day. Where is there
someone whose heart Erasmus does not occupy, whom Erasmus
does not teach, over whom Erasmus does not hold sway? I
speak of course of those who truly love learning. I am very glad
that you displease many , 2 since this, among other things, is also

1 The address is missing in the earliest printed editions of this letter, on
which the WA, Br text is based. The addressee is identified in the heading
and the first line of the letter.

2 I.e., the Scholastic opponents of Humanism.

117

LETTERS

to be counted among the gifts of Christ. By this 8 I usually
differentiate between the gifts of the merciful and of the wrathful
God. As a result I congratulate you that while you delight all
good people tremendously, you no less vex those who want to be
alone on top and want to be the most popular.

Yet I am foolish that I, with unwashed hands and without
a reverential and honorific introduction, address you, such a
great man, in the most familiar tone, as [is usually done among
common people]. But in your kindness, may you attribute this
either to my affection [for you] or to my lack of skill. Although
I have spent my life among sophists, yet I have not learned
enough to greet a learned man by letter. Were this not so, I
would have troubled you a long time ago with I don't know how
many letters, and would not have endured that you should always
speak to me only in my cell [through your books].

Now I have heard from the excellent Fabricius Capito that
you are acquainted with my name through those trivial writings
on the indulgences ; 4 I also realize from your preface to the
latest edition of the Enchiridion that you not only know but also
approve of my unimportant statements . 6 Therefore I feel com-
pelled to acknowledge (even if in a most primitive letter) your
outstanding spirit, which has enriched my own and that of all
others. I know that it will make little difference to you that I
express my affection and gratitude in a letter. You are completely
content if, known only to God, the hearts [of your readers] are
glowing with gratitude and love toward you. So we too are
satisfied to have you and your services reach us only through
your books, without knowing you personally, exchanging letters,
or talking to you directly. Yet neither good manners nor con-
science permit this gratitude to remain unspoken— especially since
my name, too, begins to be known— lest someone consider such
a silence to be malicious and mean in nature.

3 1.e., the fact that Erasmus displeases.

4 Erasmus had known of Luther's Ninety-five Theses at least since March,
1518; see Allen 3, 785. In September, 1518, Capito (see p. 305, n. 2)
informed Luther of Erasmus' opinion concerning Luther's attack on the
indulgences; see WA, Br 1, 197 f.; S-7 1, 110 f.

6 Luther is referring to Erasmus' letter of dedication in the 1518 edition
of the Enchiridion. The passage where Luther could find some acceptance
of his thoughts is found in Allen 3, 858.

118

TO ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM, MARCH 28, 1519

As a result, my Erasmus, amiable man, if it seems acceptable
to you, acknowledge also this little brother in Christ. He is
certainly most devoted to you, and has the greatest affection for
you. By the way, because of his ignorance he has earned nothing
but burial in some little comer and anonymity as far as everyone
under sky and sun is concerned. This I have always also ardently
desired, since I am very well aware of my weaknesses . 6 I do
not know by what fate this developed into just the contrary, so
that now, to my great shame, I am forced to endure [the fact]
that my disgrace and sad lack of knowledge are known even to
the learned and are discussed by them . 7

Philip Melanchthon is doing well , 8 except that we all can
hardly keep him from ruining his health through excessive zeal
for academic work. He bums with the enthusiasm of youth and
wants to become and to do all things for all men at the same
time . 9 You would do us a service if you would admonish that
man by letter to take care of himself for our sake and for the
sake of good learning . 10 For if he stays well, I do not know from
whom we may expect greater things.

Andrew Karlstadt , 11 in great reverence for the Christ dwelling
in you, sends greetings.

The Lord Jesus himself preserve you unto life eternal, ex-
cellent Erasmus. Amen. I was verbose; but remember that one
ought not always read only learned letters. Sometimes you have
to be weak with the weak . 12

Wittenberg, March 28, 1519 18

6 An allusion to an expression used by the Roman satirist A. Persius Flaccus
(d. a.d. 62); see WA, Br 1, 363, n. 6; O.C.D., p. 669.

7 For similar statements, see pp. 69, 75, 103, 146, 152, 178, 232, 274.

8 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

9 1 Cor. 9:22.

10 Bonae literae is the technical term used by the Humanists for Humanistic
studies. Erasmus fulfilled Luther's wish in a letter to Melanchthon dated
April 22, 1519; see Allen 3, 947. On Luther's concern for Melanchthon's
health and work load, see pp. Ill f., 165 f., 258, 304.

11 See p. 79, n. 12.

12 1 Cor. 9:22.

18 Some of the printed editions add: “F. Martin Luther." The earliest
printed edition omits the signature, since Luther is identified as the writer
of this letter in the heading of the letter.

119

LETTERS

To Elector Frederick
Wittenberg, about May 15, 1519 1

In spite of the excitement and disturbance stirred up by the
controversy on indulgences, the pace of Luthers life continued
to be set by his relationship to the University and monastery . He
dedicated himself to the great theological questions of the day
and to the administration of the University ( see pp. 41, 63, 82, 95
f., Ill f.) and monastery. In this letter he requests the Electors
help in obtaining a building permit; he also asks for a cowl that
has been promised to him for some time.

On Elector Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: WA, Br 1, 386-387.

To my Most Gracious Lord, Duke Frederick,
elector in Saxony, etc.: Personal

Most Serene Sovereign, Most Gracious Lord: Necessity forces us
to build a room. 2 We humbly petitioned the gentlemen of the
Wittenberg city council to give us permission to build out from
the wall above the town moat. 3 * * * * 8 We have received no answer to
our petition. We therefore ask Your Grace graciously to grant
us the favor and permission to undertake this needed construction;
we shall await Your Graces kind answer, which, God [is our
witness], we deserve.

1 On the dating of this letter, see WA, Br 1, No. 173, Introduction.

2 Luther does not make it clear what kind of a room was to be built, or

where— in the University or the monastery. The statement following sug-

gests, however, that the room was to be added to the monastery, since the

monastery was built right against the city wall; see note 3. Enders
(Brief wechsel 2, 35, n. 2) suggests that this room was intended as a toilet,

for toilets were usually built on the city walls to carry the sewage outside
the city. This seems wrong in view of Luther's statement (made in a letter

of May 30, 1519) that the prior of the monastery was building a kitchen;
see p. 125.

8 For the location of the monastery, see the plan of the city of Wittenberg
in Schwiebert, facing p. 192.

120

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, ABOUT MAY 15, 1519

I also pray Your Grace to buy for me a white and a black
cowl at this years Leipzig Fair . 4 Your Grace owes me the black
cowl; I humbly beg for the white one. For two or three years
ago Your Grace promised me one which I have not yet received,
in spite of Pfeffinger’s fair words . 5 Maybe he was too busy, or,
as people accuse him, he is slow to spend money; [in either
case] he procrastinated so long that I was forced to buy one
myself. Therefore I was taken care of, and did not have to make
use of Your Grace’s promise. In this my need I now also humbly
ask that the Apostle 6 earn a white cowl if the Psalter 7 deserves
a black one. I also beg that this may not be neglected again by
Pfeffinger, etc.

Your Grace’s willing subject
Priest D. Martin
Augustinian at Wittenberg

4 The Spring Fair of Leipzig opened on Jubilate Sunday, May 15; see
WA, Br 1, No. 173, Introduction.

5 On December 14, 1516, Luther had thanked the Elector for a piece of
cloth, obviously to be used for a cowl; see p. 33. On November 6, 1517,
he reminded the Elector of his promise made a year ago and asked that
it be kept; see pp. 50 f. This reminder apparently refers to the gift of
December 14, 1516, for which Luther must have thanked the Elector some-
what prematurely. On November 11, 1517, he apparently received this cloth;
see WA, Br 1, 124. Now, in May, 1519, Luther writes that “two or three
years ago” the Elector promised him a black cowl. This promise, obviously
made in 1516 or 1517, had not been kept due to Pfeffinger’s thriftiness
(Pfeffinger was the Electoral Saxon treasurer; see p. 32, n. 28), as Luther
suspects. This must be a different promise from the promise mentioned in
previous letters, where Luther spoke of “cloth” for a cowl (see p. 33; WA,
Br 1, 124) or Kleid (“clothing”), which we translated freely as “cowl”
(see pp. 33, 50, 51). Luther now reminds the Elector of this promise, two
or three years old by now, and asks at the same time for a new white cowl,
which was a type of undercoat worn under the black cowl.

6 “Apostle,” i.e., Luthers Commentary on Galatians (see p. 113, n. 11), which
was then on the press.

7 “Psalter,” i.e., Luther’s Second Lectures on the Psalms (Wittenberg; J.
Griinenberg, 1519-1521). WA 5, 26 ff.; LW 14, 287 ff.; see p. 114, n. 13.
On March 27, 1519, Luther dedicated this commentary to the Elector; see
WA 5, 19 ff.; LW 14, 280 ff.

121

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, May 22, 1519

On April 14, 1519, Erasmus of Rotterdam ( see pp. 116 f.) wrote
a letter (see Allen 3, 939; S-J 1, 177 ff.) to Elector Frederick (see
pp. 49 f.) asking him to protect Humanistic learning against the
dangerous attacks of the traditionalists within the church. Since
Luther was also attacked by these traditionalists, Erasmus dealt
with him in this letter too. He did this in such a fair way,
pointing out Luthers high moral reputation, that one cannot avoid
the impression that he approved of the Reformer ; see Allen 3,
939 . Yet Erasmus also noted that a common enemy does not
necessarily make for a common cause . Nevertheless this letter
teas construed by Erasmus 9 friends and enemies as approval of
Luther and his work ; this interpretation may convey some idea
of how close Humanism and the Reformation were considered
to be in the years from 1517 to 1520.

In this letter Luther expresses his reaction to Erasmus ’ letter ;
he also discusses the appointment of a professor of Hebrew and
the rising popularity of Wittenberg's university.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 404.

To the excellent Mr. George Spalatin, a priest of Christ,
my superior and patron, venerable in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. The letter of Erasmus 1 pleases me and our friends
very much . 2 I, however, would have preferred not only not to
have been mentioned in it but also not to have been praised,

1 See the Introduction; for the text, see Allen 3, 939; S-J 1, 177 ff.

2 For Melanchthon's reaction, see C.R. 1, 80; S-J 1, 188. The people around
Luther published Erasmus' letter at once. Spalatin even furnished a German
translation. By the end of July, Erasmus' letter was known almost all over
Germany. Thus it became powerful propaganda for the Reformation, some-
thing Erasmus certainly had not intended.

122

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 22, 1519

especially by such an outstanding man. I know myself too well,
at least on this point

I also ask that before leaving you sound out the Most Illus-
trious Sovereigns 3 opinion concerning a professor of Hebrew
and let us know what he thinks . 4 5 John Keller from Burgkundstadt 6
has been with us; he plans to return shortly. He taught Hebrew
at Heidelberg and is the author of a small grammar 6 (which I
believe you have seen), in which he shows that he does know
something in this field. He promised us he would do everything
in his power to be a reliable teacher if he could be sure that he
would be provided with a decent salary by our Most Illustrious
Sovereign. At the moment he is in Leipzig, waiting for our
answer. Therefore please reply promptly. At the same time please
return the letter from Duke George . 7

The number of students is growing tremendously, and they
are of good quality. In fact the Licentiate of Theology from
Niirnberg, a man of advanced age and a preacher at the hospital
and at St. Sebald s, has come here . 8 Our town can hardly hold

3 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f. Spalatin was supposed to accompany the
Elector to Frankfurt/Main, where the Elector was to take part in the election
of the new Roman king; see pp. 96 f.; Grimm, pp. 116 ff.

4 Luther was not as successful with his plea for a professor of Hebrew as he
was with his plea for a professor of Greek; see p. 63, n. 23; pp. 132 f.,
160, 162; p. 154, nn. 1, 3.

5 Luther wrote Cellarius Gnostopolitanus, Keller’s Humanistic name. Keller
taught Hebrew at Louvain, Mainz, Tubingen, and Heidelberg. He was a
personal acquaintance of Erasmus, Melanchthon, and Reuchlin. Discussions
about this call were long and drawn out; he was finally offered a yearly salary
of fifty gulden, but by then he had committed himself to teach at the Uni-
versity of Leipzig. Later he taught for a short time in Ingolstadt, where he
even defended some theses in which Luther was attacked. From 1520 on he
sided with Zwingli, but he later became a strong supporter of Luther. He
died in 1542 while a superintendent in Dresden. Melanchthon apparently was
not as impressed with Keller’s knowledge of Hebrew as Luther was; see WA,
Br 1, 405, n. 2.

6 Isagicon in Hebraeas literas ( Introduction to Hebrew) (Hagenau: T.
Anshelm, 1518).

7 This letter, dated May 7, 1519 (see WA, Br 1, No. 170), was concerned with
securing the necessary permissions for the pending Disputation at Leipzig.
See p. 110, n. 19; p. 126.

8 A certain John Herholt, who had matriculated on May 26; see WA, Br 1,
405, n. 5. Luther had met him in the fall of 1518 when he stopped over in
Niirnberg on his journey to and from the meetings with Cajetan; see pp.
92, 170.

123

LETTERS

them all, due to the lack of lodging facilities . 9 Other news at
another time.

Farewell.

May 22 , 1519

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

To Martin Glaser
Wittenberg, May 30, 1519

Martin Glaser was a fellow-friar of Luther at Wittenberg; from
1517 to 1518 he was prior of the Augustinian monastery in Ramsau /
Upper Bavaria ; later he broke away from the Roman church
and from 1524 until his death (1553?) he was a prominent evan-
gelical pastor in Franconia , especially in the area surrounding
Nurnberg. During all this time he was a faithful friend of
Luther , though they had little contact . In 1518 he had been in
Augsburg while the diet was in session there (see p. 70, n. 1)
and tried to mediate between Cardinal Cajetan and Luther. The
chances are that Luther used Glaser's horse to escape from Augs-
burg (see p. 87)— without Glasers knowledge. Luther now
apologizes for having done this. Luther also reports on his
academic work, comments on some actions of his enemies, and
tells of the construction of a kitchen in the monastery.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 1, 408-409; translation based on S-J
1, 191-192.

To the Reverend Father Martin Glaser,

Bachelor of Sacred Theology, prior of the Eremites 1 in Ramsau,
my dearest friend in the Lord

• See pp. 125, 161 f.
1 See p. 6, n. 3.

124

TO MARTIN GLASER, MAY 30, 1519
Jesus

Greetings. You have every right to be amazed, or even indignant,
my venerable Father, that I have not written a single line to
you before this. Even though I have excuses, I prefer to confess
my guilt. I hope you will be indulgent with a very poor man
like me in regard to your horse , 2 on account of the intercession
of the Reverend Father Vicar . 8 You gave it to God, to be sure,
not to me.

What a pleasure that we may see you here again! I have
heard from the Reverend Father Vicar that this will be the case.

1 believe that you know of my coming Disputation at Leipzig , 4
and of all my other activities. I am lecturing on the Psalms 5
again; the University flourishes, and the town is full of students,

Rome is burning to destroy me, but I coolly laugh at her. I
am told that in the Campo di Fiore a Martin-in-effigy has been
publicly burned, cursed, and execrated . 6 I am ready for their rage.

My commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians is already
being printed . 7 You will see it any day now.

Besides this, we live well and quietly and at last are less
poor than we were . 8 Our Helt 9 is ruling quite well and also
building, but only a kitchen . 10 For thus far he cares only for
the belly; later he will also care for the head.

I have read what you wrote 11 some time ago about that

2 See the Introduction and WA, TR 1, No. 1203.

3 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1. The letter is not extant.

4 See p. 126.

5 Luther’s Second Lectures on the Psalms; see p. 121, n. 7.

• The date of this event is controversial. For various possibilities, see WA,
Br 1, 409, n. 6; R. F. Kerr (trans.), L. Pastor’s History of the Popes from the
Close of the Middle Ages (40 vols.; London: Kegan, Trench, and Triibner,
1891-1954), VIII, 36 f.

7 See p. 113, n. 11.

8 See p. 30.

9 Conrad Helt of Niimberg was at that time prior of the Augustinian monastery
in Wittenberg. He had matriculated in Wittenberg University in 1512 and
was graduated as Master of Arts in 1516. In 1518 he was elected prior of the
Wittenberg monastery, a position he held until 1522 when he left Wittenberg.
After short stays in Niimberg and Nordhausen, Helt became prior of the
Heidelberg monastery. He died there in 1548. See ARG 7 (1910), 264 f.

10 This must be the room to which Luther referred on p. 120.

11 Glaser’s letter is not extant. The "Franciscan babbler” could not be identi-
fied exactly. Perhaps it was Bernhard Dappen, who was lector (see p. 7,
n. 9) in the Franciscan monastery at Jiiterbog; WA, Br 1, 410, n. 9. In 1518

125

LETTERS

Franciscan babbler. But I am used to such ill will. The whole
world is wavering and shaking, in body as well as soul. God
knows what the outcome will be. I predict massacres and wars.
God have mercy upon us.

Farewell in Him, and pray for poor me.

May 30, 1519

Friar Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, July 20, 1519

This letter is Luthers report on the disputation between Eck,
Karlstadt , and himself, which took place in Leipzig from June 27
to July 16, 1519 .

See Fife , pp. 349 ff.; Schwiebert, pp. 391 ff.; Bainton, pp. 102
ff. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 420-424. For the text in translation
by Harold J. Grimm, see LW 31, 318 ff.

To George Spalatin

Liebenwerda, October 9, or Wittenberg, October 10,

1519 1

Luther reports on a meeting with Charles von Miltitz (see p.
97, n. 3) at Liebenwerda on October 9, 1519.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 525.

Dappen had violently criticized Luther. Luther heard about it, and he in
turn complained to the monastery in Jiiterbog concerning Dappen’s action.
The monastery, of course, sided with its lector, and the whole affair was
brought before the Bishop of Brandenburg. See WA, Br 1, No. 174, Intro-
duction.

1 The autograph of this letter is not dated, nor does Luther give the place

126

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, OCTOBER 15, 1519

Jesoi

To begin with, he 2 ordered me to greet our Most Illustrious
Sovereign 8 in his name. Secondly, he also ordered me to give
his greetings to you, too. Thirdly, he asked whether I would
stand by the agreement we had made at Altenburg, to the effect
that the Archbishop of Trier should be judge . 4 I said I would.
This was the last act of the drama. At the end he said that by
this conversation he had fulfilled his apostolic commission 5 and
would soon go back to Rome, and that he had not wanted to
leave without having directly discussed the case with me.

Martin Luther

Instead of a tragedy, we had a comedy regarding the power
of the pope. We agreed that the pope does not have by divine
right the power which he now wields, yet that his commission
is indeed different from that of the other apostles. When I asked
him how this power [of the pope] differs [from that of the other
apostles], he said that it was really the same, except it was given
to Peter for a different part of the earth. Oh, he said, we would
soon agree on the matter! 6

To Elector Frederick
Wittenberg, October 15, 1519

During the meetings with Charles von Miltitz (see pp. 97 ff., and
above) Luther had agreed to submit his case to a neutral court .

where he wrote it. Spalatin, however, wrote on the back of the original:
“D. Martin Luther’s conference with Sir Charles von Miltitz at Liebenwerda.
1519”; see WA, Br 1, 525. From the letter of von Miltitz to the Elector,
dated October 10, 1519, we know that this meeting took place on October 9;
see WA, Br 1, No. 204, Document II. Luther must have written his letter
either immediately after the meeting, while still in Liebenwerda, or on the
next day after he had returned to Wittenberg.

2 Von Miltitz; see p. 97, n. 3.

3 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

4 See p. 99; p. 104, n. 4. In his report on the meeting at Altenburg, Luther
did not mention the Archbishop of Trier.

5 Commission of the Apostolic See.

6 This sentence is written in macaronic German and Latin.

127

LETTERS

Luthers willingness to do so was used by von Miltitz in an attempt
to get Luther out of Electoral Saxony and deprive him of the
Electors immediate protection . This, in turn, would have enabled
von Miltitz to lay hold of Luther and perhaps bring him to Rome.
In a letter to the Elector (see WA, Br 1, No. 204, Document II),
von Miltitz pretended, therefore, that Luther had previously
expressed his willingness to accompany him at once to Trier, since
the Archbishop of Trier was one of the neutral judges Luther was
willing to accept. In this letter Luther clarifies his position on this
matter .

On Elector Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: WA, Br 1, 535-536.

To the Most Serene, Noble Sovereign and Lord, Sir Frederick,
duke in Saxony, elector and archmarshal of the Holy Roman
Empire, and vicar of His Imperial Majesty in Saxonian territory,
landgrave in Thuringia, margrave in Meissen,
my Most Gracious Lord and Patron

Jesus

Most Serene and Noble Sovereign, Most Gracious Lord: Before
all else, my humble prayer and services are always at the disposal
of Your Electoral Grace.

Most Gracious Lord: I understand that my friend and master,
Sir Charles von Miltitz, has written to Your Electoral Grace to
the effect that I have obligated myself to accompany him to
Trier. 1 It amazed me to hear this. He asked nothing else of
me 2 than whether I was still willing to accept the Archbishop
of Trier as judge, 3 as was agreed upon at Altenburg; 4 I said I
was and that I would adhere to the agreement made between
Your Electoral Grace and the Most Reverend, etc., [Archbishop] 5

iVon Miltitz’s letter to the Elector (see WA, Br 1, No. 204, Document II)
had been forwarded to Luther. See also pp. 108 f.

2 During the meeting at Liebenwerda; see p. 127.

3 Richard von Greiffenklau; see p. 104, n. 4.

4 See pp. 97 ff., 103 f.

5 Of Trier; see note 3.

128

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, OCTOBER 15, 1519

at Frankfurt . 6 I especially mentioned Your Electoral Grace's
advice and agreement, as our Prior , 7 who was present, also heard
and still affirms. I never considered traveling with anyone to
Trier prior to the diet , 8 nor was it ever discussed. Even Charles
[von Miltitz] stated that now he had accomplished his mission
and intended to travel by the most direct route to Rome . 9 Of
course I am still willing and ready to come to the diet 10 upon
Your Electoral Graces advice and promise, and do what I should
do. But now in such times of dangers of war, plague, and other
hazards all around, I do not want to promise it, not to speak
of fulfilling [such a promise].

I wanted to inform Your Electoral Grace of this in humble
obedience, so that Your Electoral Grace might know the subject
of our discussion at Liebenwerda from a trustworthy source.
With this, I humbly commend myself to Your Electoral Grace.
Wittenberg, October 15, 1519

Your Electoral Graces dedicated priest
and servant,

D. [Martin Luther ] 11

6 From June 11 to July 4, 1519, the Elector was at Frankfurt, where accord-
ing to an old custom the Electoral College met for the election of the new
king; see p. 70, n. 1; p. 123, n. 3; pp. 96 f.; WA, Br 1, 424, n. 1. Since the
Archbishop of Trier was also a member of the Electoral College, he too was in
Frankfurt and both electors discussed Luther’s case.

7 Conrad Helt; see p. 125, n. 9.

8 “Prior to the diet,” i.e., before the meeting of the Electoral College of the
diet at Frankfurt. Luther meant that after the meeting at Altenburg (where
this idea had been discussed) he never would have traveled anywhere to
appear before any neutral judges until the Elector had had a chance to sound
out the Archbishop of Trier (one of the proposed judges) at the meeting in
Frankfurt.

9 See p. 127.

10 As far as this editor can see, this passage is usually ignored. Did Luther
consider appearing before a session of the diet as early as October, 1519?
Then the ideas which led to Worms would have had their origin here, at
least as far as Luther was concerned. Another possible way to understand
this passage would be: the Electoral proclamation of the election of Charles
V (see notes 6, 8; pp. 175 f.) demanded calling the Council of Regency into
session (see p. 70, n. 1), and perhaps Luther was thinking that he should
appear before this body of the diet, or that the meeting with the judges was
to take place in the framework of a commission created either by the diet or
the Electoral College or the Council of Regency.

11 The autograph is not signed but has “. . . .” Luther wrote this letter, as
the handwriting shows and as is confirmed by a note in Spalatin’s handwriting
which is inserted after the address.

129

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, November 1, 1519

Luther asks Spalatin to forward the Treatise on Preparing for
Death to Mark Schart in appreciation for a gift of ten gulden.
He asks for Spalatin s advice about aid for some needy people.
He also discusses Eck's latest publication against him and his
own reply to it. He adjures Spalatin to see that Langenmantel
is properly supplied with all the printed sheets of the Second
Lectures on the Psalms.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 548-549.

To my friend in the Lord, George Spalatin,
an esteemed servant of Christ

Jesus

Greetings. I ask you, my Spalatin, to thank Mark Schart 1 on
my behalf for those ten gulden 2 and send him as many of these
little books 3 as you see fit. To tell the truth, on that very same
day that I became so rich, the need of certain people made me
poorer. I had to loan them some money. It disgusts me that no
love at all is left among the people of Christ, so that not even
one of those who have something will help his neighbor with
twenty gulden. I even think that those gulden were given to
me because the Lord wanted to help those people through me;
but it is not enough. Therefore if you will advise me to do so,

1 Mark Schart was a noble retainer of Elector Frederick. Owning many farms
and being extremely wealthy, he was a patron of the University and at dif-
ferent times gave gifts of money to Luther, other faculty members, and stu-
dents. On Schart, see ARG 8 (1911), 33 f.

2 On the gulden, see p. 11, n. 2.

8 These evidently are copies of Luther's Sermon von der Bereitung zum
Sterhen ( Treatise on Preparing for Death) (Wittenberg, J. Griinenberg,
1519). WA 2, 685 ff. An extant copy of the original printing bears the fol-
lowing dedication in Luther's handwriting: "Mr. Mark Schart, my dear friend”;
see WA, Br 1, 549, n. 1.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 1, 1519

I shall even knock at the most clement Sovereign’s 4 door re-
garding this need. By God’s grace, I ask nothing for myself.

Furious Eck has published a Defense against the letter I
sent to you. I have already answered him with six sheets which
were finished this week and are already at the press. 5 It is just
amazing how the man rages; and also how he is so full of lies.
This attack comes at a most convenient and opportune time for
me. [Eck] carelessly uncovered his hypocrisy; at this point alone
—while saying nothing about others— I laid hold of him, forcing
him to expose himself and his gang from Leipzig further. I shall
send you a copy soon. If Langenmantel 6 does not have the
complete Second Lectures on the Psalms, then send him this
copy. 7 But if he has some printed sheets, then return it and tell
me the number [he has] so that we do not cause the printer a loss.

Farewell in the Lord.

November 1 , 1519

Martin Luther

4 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

5 In August of 1519 Luther sent his Resolutiones Lutherianae super proposi-
tionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis ( Luther* s Explanations of his Theses which
had been Disputed in Leipzig) to George Spalatin, dedicating it to him; see
WA 2, 391 ff.; WA, Br 1, No. 191; for the text of the letter, see WA 2, 391 ff.
The letter of dedication was printed at once, although not in the present form;
see WA, Br 1, No. 191, Introduction. In it Luther sharply criticized the con-
duct of John Eck and the Theological Faculty of Leipzig (see p. 63, n. 24)
during the Disputation at Leipzig (see p. 126). At the same time he criticized
Eck’s theological position. Eck answered immediately with a Defense (for the
title, see WA 2, 699), to which Luther now refers. During the first week of
November Luther worked on his rebuttal of this Defense. When this letter
was written, the rebuttal had grown to six sheets. On November 7 it was
completed: Ad Iohannem Eccium M. Lutheri epistola . . . ( Martin Luthe/s
Letter to John Eck) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg, November, 1519). WA 2,
700 ff. Some documents concerning the aftermath of the Disputation at Leip-
zig are available in St. L. 15, 1258 ff.

6 Christopher Langenmantel, a canon at Freising, had attended the Diet of
Augsburg in 1518 as a member of the delegation of Matthew Lang (see p. 99,
n. 14) and supported Luther during the latter's interviews with Cardinal
Cajetan (see p. 83). In the spring of 1519 he visited Electoral Saxony and
renewed his acquaintance with Luther. See WA, Br 1, No. 113, Introduction.

7 The Second Lectures on the Psalms (see p. 121, n. 7) was published in
fascicles, each one containing several printed sheets. Each fascicle included
one or two Psalm explanations. It was sold by the fascicle, but sometimes
individual printed sheets could also be bought. See WA, Br 1, 371, n. 30;
W. Maurer, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen. Zwei Untersuchungen
zu Luthers Reformationsschriften 1520/21 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1949), pp. 109 ff., 159 ff.

131

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, November 7, 1519

In connection with the reorganization of the University curriculum
(see pp. 41 f., 82, 95 f.; p. 63, n. 23; p. 123, n. 4), Luther wonders
about calling Matthew Adrian as professor of Hebrew to the
University of Wittenberg, . He comments once more on Eck 9 s De-
fense (see p. 131, n. 5) and encloses his own reply to Eck. He also
expresses his gratitude for a gift of venison .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br 1 , 551.

To my dearest friend in Christ, George Spalatin, a most blameless

priest of God

Jesus

Greetings. Matthew Adrian , 1 a Jew from Louvain, has written
to me, my Spalatin, as you will see from the [enclosed letter ]. 2
He was forced to leave there by their 3 tyranny and asks to teach
Hebrew [at our University]. You know the fame and leamedness
of this man. Therefore please bring to the attention of the Most
Illustrious Sovereign 4 the gifts of God of a most distinguished
opportunity to promote the study of Hebrew among us. I ask you

1 Matthew Adrian, a Spanish Jew who was converted to Christianity, at
first studied medicine, but later, upon the suggestion of John Reuchlin, he
taught Hebrew in Tubingen, Basel, Heidelberg, Liege, and Louvain. Here,
on March 21, 1519, he praised the three classical languages ( Greek, Latin, and
Hebrew) in a public lecture and demonstrated that a thorough knowledge
of them was the absolute prerequisite for theological studies. This caused a
fury among the traditionalists, especially with James Latomus (see p. 229,
n. 3). As a result of their harassment, Adrian had to leave Louvain. In April,
1520, he was called to the University of Wittenberg as professor of Hebrew.
In 1521 he was asked to resign, and he went to Leipzig, then later to Freiburg/
Breisgau. His linguistic abilities were outstanding, but it seems that his per-
sonal conduct often caused him trouble (see p. 162). See WA, Br 1, 551,
n. 1.

2 This letter apparently is not extant.

•The traditionalists; see note 1.

4 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f .

132

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 29, 1519

to reply as quickly as possible, so that I may give him an
answer. His messenger is staying with me in the meantime. You
see, he® thinks he heard an announcement of our Sovereigns
death. May God prevent this for a long timel May that be a
false omen!

I enclose Eck s nonsense, with my short reply . 6 I shall answer
at greater length when he has totally betrayed himself 7 by that
most impious hypocrisy of his.

Farewell, and pray for me. We thank the Most Illustrious
Sovereign for the venison.

November 7, 1519 Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, November 29, 1519

Luther describes the visit of a dignitary of the Teutonic Order .
He disparages the approval given Eck by the University of Leipzig,
touches briefly upon some of his publications, and extends thanks
for a gift .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 563-564.

To my friend in Christ, George Spalatin, a servant of God, a
priest [and] a good and learned man

Jesus

Greetings. You have neatly handed back to me the task of marking
the passages, which I had shoved at you . 1 You have won! Besides
this, I thank you for the princely gift . 2

5 Adrian; because of this rumor he was eager to receive a commitment as soon
as possible.

6 See p. 131, n. 5.

7 In his Defense (see note 6) Eck announced a work on the primacy of the
papacy; Luther is anticipating this work. See WA, Br 1, 450, n. 3.

1 It is not clear what Luther meant here; for a possible interpretation, see
WA, Br 1, 564, n. 1; 557, n. 1.

2 The nature of the gift cannot be established; perhaps it was some clothing
or jewelry; see p. 121, n. 5.

138

LETTERS

I read a long time ago the printed nonsense the people of
Leipzig had sent to Eck. 3 A most verbose treatise on the Eucharist
is in the press. 4 Philip is pleased that he is urged by the Sovereign
to wear his gift. 5

The Count of Isenburg of the Teutonic Order 6 visited me
for a night and a day; he had led those soldiers and conducted
himself quite nobly. He requested me to greet you in his name.
He had come here to see me. But listen to the “civility” of the
gatekeeper of WittenbergI He was drunk, and so he had closed
the city gate at five o’clock. The Count, who arrived late, asked
to be admitted to the town in the name of the Abbot of Zinna, 7
after he had asked in vain in his own name. [The gatekeeper],
however— or rather the beer in him— shouted, “The Abbot of Zinna
has never given me one single tip!” 8 What more do you want?
The Count and two noblemen 9 were forced to dismount at the
tavern outside the upper gate. I did not want to hide this story
from you, so that you too can boast with us of this “courtesy”!

Farewell, and pray for me. Of course I don’t care how you
formulated the title of my Tessaradecas , 10 as long as it does not
smell of arrogance; after all, the title itself is of little importance.
November 29, 1519 Martin Luther

Augustinian

3 On July 25, 1519, the Theological Faculty of the University of Leipzig issued
a proclamation (see WA, Br 1, 438 f. ) in which Eck was announced as the
victor of the disputation which had taken place between Eck, Karlstadt, and
Luther in Leipzig (see p. 126). Spalatin must have written Luther about it.

4 Ein Sermon von dem hochwurdigen Sakrament des heiligen wahren
Leichnams Christi und von den Bruderschaften ( The Blessed Sacrament of
the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods) (Wittenberg: J.
Griinenberg, December, 1519). WA 2, 742 ff.; LW 35, 49 ff.

5 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3. This may have been some jewelry or
cloth given Melanchthon by Elector Frederick.

6 William of Isenburg, or Eisenberg, had served the Teutonic Order in Prussia
for many years and was the Order's grand-marshal from 1501 to 1514. At
this point he was retiring from office and returning to his family estate in the
Rhineland; he eventually introduced the Reformation there, and became deeply
involved in the controversy with the Counter-Reformation. See WA, Br 1,
564, n. 5.

7 On Benedict, the abbot of Zinna (1506-1536), see WA, Br 1, 564, n. 8.

8 This quotation is written in German.

9 Not known.

10 In the summer of 1519 Luther wrote the Tessaradecas consolatoria ( The
Fourteen of Consolation). WA 6, 104 ff.; PE 1, 110 ff. This little book was
intended to comfort the Elector if he should be sick or in low spirits. Spalatin

134

TO JOHN LANG, DECEMBER 18, 1519

To John Lang

Wittenberg, December 18, 1519

Luther reports on one of the friars of the Erfurt monastery who
is studying in Wittenberg . He discusses the publication of his
Second Lectures on the Psalms, mentions his revision of the
Sermon on Usury, and tells about an anonymous treatise from
Bohemia which is circulating in Wittenberg. He comments at
some length on the latest moves of his enemies (the Faculty of
the University of Leipzig, Eck, Eraser, and von Miltitz), and
also gives some news of Wittenberg.

See Fife, pp. 368 ff.; Schwiebert, pp. 423 ff. On John Lang,
see p. 14.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 596-597.

To the Reverend Father John Lang, theologian, Augustinian at
Erfurt , 1 district vicar , 2 my esteemed friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. We shall do with the money of Friar Caesar 3 as you
have written, Reverend Father. When the letter arrived, Caesar
was not at home. It is up to you, however, whether he will stay
here or not. You wrote previously that he would remain here
until he would return to you as [Bible lecturer]. He is now at-
tending theological lectures and studies solid books; I am only
sorry that I cannot send all the friars into Philip’s theological

was to translate it into German. Spalatin apparently wanted Luther s opinion
on his version of the title. The book was available in German and Latin by
the beginning of 1520.

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 See p. 61, n. 6.

8 John Caesar, or Kaiser, an Augustinian of Erfurt, had matriculated in the
University of Wittenberg on May 22, 1518; see WA, Br 1, 416, n. 7. The
Erfurt monastery sometimes sent friars to the University of Wittenberg; Luther,
for instance, had been sent there for a year; see p. 5. On October 14, 1519,
Caesar was graduated as Bachelor of Arts and began his theological studies.
He was supposed to stay in Wittenberg until he could graduate as cursor
Bibliae, or Bible lecturer (see p. 5), the first degree in a theological
career; see WA, Br 1, 598, n. 2. All letters mentioned by Luther are not
extant.

135

LETTERS

lectures on Matthew 4 at six o’clock in the morning. That little
Greek scholar outdoes me even in theology itself.

I did not know you received the Second Lectures on the
Psalms 5 twice, once from me and once from Philip. The other
trivial publications 6 I believed would reach you without my
effort. I am revising the Sermon on Usury 1 and will see to it
that the true doctrine of Christ strikes home with a large number
of people. I am sending all the other things . 8 Please provide us
with the printed disputation as soon as possible . 9

Eck threatens me , 10 Philip, Karlstadt , 11 our whole University,
and even the Sovereign 12 himself with I don’t know what kind
of terrible things. He spat out some chaotic stuff in German
against the Sovereign ; 18 you would have thought Almighty God
himself was speaking. It is good that such a sophist clashes with
such a sovereign.

It pleases us that your people at Erfurt have abstained from

4 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3. On this course, see C.R. 14, 531 ff.;
O. Clemen (ed.), Supplementa Melanchthoniana (Leipzig: Heinsius Nach-
folger, 1926 f.), 6, I, 80. “At six o'clock in the morning” and “friars” are
missing in the manuscript copy (perhaps of the original) but were added in
even the earliest printed editions, perhaps on the basis of the original, which is
now missing.

« See p. 121, n. 7; p. 131, n. 7.

6 It is not clear to what publications Luther refers.

7 In November, 1519, Luther published Ein [kleiner] Sermon von dem Wucher
(A [Short] Sermon on Usury) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg). WA 6, 3 ff. In
December, 1519, he reworked this treatise and in January, 1520, he published
it as Ein [grosser] Sermon von dem Wucher (A [Long] Sermon on Usury)
(Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg). WA 6, 36 ff.; LW 45, 273 ff.; see also LW 45,
233 ff.

8 Perhaps new fascicles of the Second Lectures on the Psalms (see p. 131,
n. 7).

9 Soon after the Disputation at Leipzig (see p. 126), the University of Leipzig
and John Eck (see p. 80, n. 13) had asked the universities of Paris (see
p. 258, n. 7) and Erfurt to decide on the victor and to establish whose teach-
ings were dogmatically correct; see p. 134, n. 3. It is most probable that the
minutes of the disputation were attached to these requests. Because of his
connections with the University of Erfurt, Lang must have been able to copy
these minutes, and apparently set out to publish them at once. Luther is now
requesting a copy of this edition. For the bibliography and for the text of
Lang’s edition, see WA 2, 250 ff.

10 John Eck; see p. 80, n. 13.

11 Andrew Karlstadt; see p. 79, n. 12.

12 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

18 In his letter to the Elector of November 8, 1519; see WA, Br 1, No. 192,
Document VI; S-J 1, 246 ff.

136

TO JOHN LANG, DECEMBER 18, 1519

passing judgment . 14 Therefore the debate was in vain and the
judgment of the Parisians is meaningless. As a result, by the grace
of God an opportunity has opened for attacking the Roman Anti-
christ . 16

A treatise is circulating here, supposedly written by a certain
Bohemian; highly erudite, theological, and [written] in both
languages, it is against the tyranny of the Roman Curia . 16

I did not quite understand what you meant (when you wrote
in Greek) that it was not without great effort on your part that
the disputation [minutes] were sent back to Duke George , 17 and
also why your theologians and lawyers were so highly dis-
turbed . 18

I shall not answer Emser 19 in a separate book because that
great bungler not only affirms and grants everything I accuse
him of, but he does not even touch the essential point of the
case at all, raging only with insults. When the promised attack

14 Luther was not sure, at this point, of the position the University of Erfurt
would take on the Disputation at Leipzig; see note 9. He had written to Lang
that the Leipzig Faculty was spreading die rumor that Erfurt had decided in
favor of Eck; see WA, Br 1, 539. Lang, in turn, must have informed Luther
that the University would not pass judgment. The University delayed an-
nouncing its decision until December 29, and then returned the case (includ-
ing the minutes) to the court of Duke George (see p. 110, n. 20) in Leipzig;
see Akten und Brief e 1, No. 149.

15 See p. 114, n. 16.

16 This treatise, perhaps written in German and Latin, or in Czech and Latin,
cannot be identified.

17 Lang must have urged the University of Erfurt not to pass judgment ( see
notes 9, 14) and obviously must have informed Luther of the result of his
efforts, although the University delayed announcing this decision until Decem-
ber 29; see note 14. On Duke George, see p. 110, n. 20.

18 This word is written in Greek.

19 I.e., Emser ’s A venatione Luteriana Aegocerotis assertio (Declaration
Concerning Luthers Chasing of Goat Emser) (Leipzig: M. Landsberg,
November, 1519); this was already the fourth publication in a battle between
Emser and Eck on the one side and Luther on the other. For details, see
WA 2, 655 ff.; PE 3, 277 ff. Jerome Emser (1478-1527) was secretary and
chaplain to Duke George of Saxony (see p. 110, n. 20). He had studied law
ana theology at the University of Tubingen and before he entered the service
of Duke George he obtained his Master's degree from the University of Erfurt
After the Disputation at Leipzig he became one of the most violent and
sarcastic opponents of Luther, and after 1520 he attacked almost all th$
major writings of the Reformer. Emser's coat of arms contained a he-goat;
Luther clashed with this “goat of Leipzig” at various times, and his tone
was equally biting. See O.D.C.C., p. 450.

1ST

LETTERS

by Eck is published , 20 I shall answer him and Emser at the
same time.

Charles Miltitz 21 is now in Torgau, now in Lochau , 22 busily
trying to take me with him to Trier . 23 My enemies are strangely
afraid; they try all kinds of maneuvers and act almost like madmen
over the delay of my destruction. The bishops write to Rome
against me . 24 What the future will bring even I myself do not
know; if I receive a safe-conduct and a summons from the
[Arch] bishop of Trier, perhaps I shall go to Trier.

The Reverend Father Vicar 25 is at Salzburg; he is well and
honored there. He writes that Eck heedlessly courts prominent
men; but his "unassuming” conduct displeases the bishop. Cardinal
Lang . 26 Lotther from Leipzig is establishing a publishing house
here, with type faces for printing in the three languages 27 The
University is prospering, especially the study of theology 28
Leipzig is Leipzig, according to her custom . 29 I myself am terribly
busy.

Farewell and pray for me.

Wittenberg, December 18, 1519

20 This was Eck’s (see note 9) Pro Hieronymo Emser contra malesanam
Luteri venationem responsio (Reply in Behalf of Jerome Emser Against
Luthers Mad Chase ) (Leipzig: M. Landsberg), signed on October 28, 1519.
It was some time, however, before Luther had a copy. Apparently Luther
did not give a special answer to these two writings.

21 Charles von Miltitz; see p. 97, n. 3.

22 These two cities were of major importance for the administration of
Electoral Saxony. The Electoral court resided at Lochau. It seems that von
Miltitz was trying to reach the Elector, whom he believed to be in either
place; see WA , Br 1, 595, n. 1. For the discussions, see St. L. 15, 760 ff.

23 See pp. 108 f., 127 ff.

24 On December 8, 1519, von Miltitz wrote to the Elector that the Pope's
patience with Luther was at an end, and that he (von Miltitz) was afraid
that some bishops had informed the Curia how many people were being led
astray by Luther’s preaching and writing; see WA, Br 1, 598, n. 15. The
correspondence with Rome could not be further identified.

25 John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1; p. 72.

26 Matthew Lang; see p. 99, n. 14.

27 Melchior Lotther established his press in Wittenberg in the summer of
1519. The “three languages” were German, Latin, and Greek. The first book
in Hebrew was not published in Wittenberg until 1523; see WA, Br 1, 383,
n. 2. See also p. 19, n. 8.

28 For similar statements, see pp. 123, 125.

29 On the relationship between Leipzig and Wittenberg, see p. 63, n. 24.

138

TO THOMAS FUCHS, DECEMBER 23, 1519

May your new licentiates make good progress . 30 Amen.
Greetings to Father Master Usingen . 31

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

To Thomas Fuchs
Wittenberg, December 23, 1519

Because of the controversy on indulgences and his courageous
opposition to clerical abuses, Luther became a champion for all
who were unjustly treated by the clergy, or at least thought they
were . This letter has to be seen in this light .

In this case the Bishop of Regensburg had requested one-
third of all the donations and income of a certain pilgrimage
chapel which had been built in 1519 ; to the best of our knowledge
it had been constructed primarily with monies from private
sources and not from the Bishop or the city. The city council,
however, had doubts about the legal and moral grounds of the
Bishop's request and sought the opinion of various authorities.
Thomas Fuchs, representative of the Imperial government in the
city of Regensburg, took it upon himself to ask Luther for advice ;
see WA, Br 1, 573. In his answer Luther suggests a peaceful
Christian settlement.

On Luthers relation to German city officials, see H. J. Grimm,
“ The Relations of Luther and Melanchthon with the Townsmen"
V. Vajta (ed.), Luther and Melanchthon (Philadelphia, 1961), pp.
32

Text in German: WA, Br 1, 599.

30 These licentiates could not be identified; on this degree, see p. 264, n. 3.

31 Bartholomew Arnoldi of Usingen, Luther's former teacher in Erfurt; see
p. 30, n. 18. This last paragraph is omitted in some editions, although it
appears in a manuscript copy (perhaps of the original) from which the
editor of WA, Br took it.

139

LETTERS

To the courageous and honorable Sir Thomas Fuchs, knight at
Schneeberg, representative of His Imperial Majesty 1 and of the
Holy Roman Empire at Regensburg, etc., my special
lord and patron

Jesus

Before all else, my humble prayer and wishes for the best in
everything. Courageous, honorable, dear sir and friend: I have
received and carefully studied your letter and question . 2 Having
experienced at Augsburg your great faithfulness toward me , 3
I know that I am obliged to render every service to Your Honor
and would like to answer this question correctly and clearly. I
am motivated, of course, by the gospel, since in all such matters
Christ gives a short statement of true counsel, saying, “If anyone
would quarrel with you and sue you to take away your coat,
let him have the cloak as well.” 4 According to my responsibility
as a theologian I can give you no other advice in this matter. No
party among you will do justice to the gospel unless it permits
the other to do what it wishes. Your legally appointed bishop 5
should let the city council have its way, and vice versa. His
spiritual jurisdiction 6 is of no aid to the Bishop, as usage and
custom do not help the city council, because the gospel stands
above both. It is true, of course, that the pope has decreed
that one-third of such an offering should go to the legally ap-
pointed bishop ; 7 whether he has a right to do so is his own
responsibility. It almost looks like selfishness; but we are obliged
to suffer violence and injustice. Therefore it would be my counsel

1 Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

2 See the Introduction; for the text of the letter, ,see WA, Br 1, 573.

8 During Luther's stay at Augsburg, 1518 (see pp. 70 f., 83 ff., 87 ff.); the
circumstances are not known.

4 Matt. 5:40 (Vulgate?).

5 “Bishop" is written in Latin here and throughout the letter.

6 This is the jurisdiction of the church ( see also pp. 257 f. ) as exercised by the
priests, bishops, archbishops, and popes over other members of the hierarchy
(who were subordinated to them), as well as over the laity, which was
subjected to the spiritual and sometimes even worldly (i.e., territorial) rule
of the church.

7 For the papal decision, see Decreti Secunda Pars, causa X, ques. 1, cap. 7.
CIC 1. 614.

140

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, DECEMBER 31, 1519

and request that bishop and city council come to an agreement
in a friendly way, without arguing, use of force, or help [of
the law]. Maybe the Bishop can be prevailed upon to give in.
But if not, they 8 have no right to refer [the case] to the Roman
See. 9

Take my considered opinion in good will and friendship, as
coming from a theologian for whom it is not proper to advise
strife and lawsuit but rather peace and patience. I am, of course,
always ready to serve Your Honor.

Written at Wittenberg , December 23, 1519

Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian at Wittenberg

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, December 31, 1519

In this letter Luther forwards a petition from the city council of
Kemberg ( one of the many letters of supplication he continually
received) to Spalatin , who is to intervene with the Electoral
government for any possible help . Luther also discusses the matter
of a certain widow .

For similar letters , see Luther: Letters . LCC 18, 171 ff. On
George Spalatin , see pp. 8 /.

Text in Latin: WA, Br I, 604 .

To the learned and honorable man, George Spalatin, chaplain to
the Sovereign at Lochau, 1 my superior in Christ

8 Both parties: the Bishop and the city council.

• Another way to translate this sentence would be: "But if they [the city
councilors] cannot accomplish this, they have no legal basis for claiming [such
offering] before the Roman See.”

1 On Lochau, see p. 138, n. 22.

141

LETTERS

Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin, I am enclosing a petition from the city
council of Kemberg 2 to the Sovereign , 3 in which they complain
of being oppressed by taxes that are far too high. I ask your
help in this matter, since you can do it without endangering
yourself. Perhaps the Most Illustrious Sovereign will not wish
to intervene in this whole affair and change the situation with
an abrupt order (which is not necessary). In that case just help
those people to understand that in this matter they have the
Sovereigns good will and sympathy. For the people there are
absolutely sucked dry by this extreme usury, and the situation gets
worse every day because of the most evil example of sinning: both
the priesthood and the services of the church, and also certain
religious fraternities, are supported by these sacrilegious taxes and
ungodly plunderings, which should not take place at all. You may
be sure that you serve God and his will with the finest service
if in this case you can accomplish something yourself and also
accomplish anything at all with the Sovereign.

The widow is returning ; 4 I myself have inspected her house,
and I have seen that the canons are not disturbed without reason.
It is something that can be expected in this case.

2 Kemberg was a small town a few miles south of Wittenberg, with which
Luther had many connections. His former student and colleague, Bartholomew
Bemhardi, was provost there (see p. 115, n. 21); while returning from
Augsburg on October 31, 1518, Luther celebrated mass in Kemberg (see
pp. 87, 93; Schwiebert, p. 355); and he also preached there on various
occasions (see p. 148). During the Christmas season of 1519 he preached a
sermon there which later became part of his [Long] Sermon on Usury (see
p. 136, n. 7); see Schwiebert, p. 443.

3 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

4 A certain Walpurga Landmann, who caused Luther quite a few headaches;
see pp. 148, 162, 172. She had willed her house to the All Saints' Chapter
of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, but suddenly wanted to change her
will and retain the house for herself or her widowed sister. The canons of
the chapter claimed the house, arguing that a will is identical with a gift.
They were willing, however, to pay the yearly sum of fourteen gulden to
the widow until her death (on the gulden, see p. 11, n. 2). She had
approached Luther for help, and he, in turn, had asked Spalatin for help;
see WA, Br 1, 555, n. 1. Luther is now reporting on his own investiga-
tion.

142

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 14, 1520

Our Hess 5 6 would have sent the Method of Investigating
Heretics 6 to Crotus 7 in Italy if you had returned it.

Farewell for now. I am terribly busy right now and at the
same time completely overwhelmed by trials. 8
Wittenberg, December 31, 1519

Martin Luther

Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, January 14, 1520

Soon after Luther had attacked the Roman Curia, he was linked
with the Bohemian reformer John Huss (1369?-1415; see O.D.C.C.,
pp. 667 f.), who had been burned as a heretic. The Hussites in-
sisted that contrary to the practice of the church in the West, the
Lords Supper must be celebrated “sub utraque speciei ,~ or with
“both kinds,” that is, both elements of the Lords Supper must be
given to the communicant. In December, 1519, Luther published

5 John Hess (1490-1547), known as the Reformer of Breslau, studied
theology in Wittenberg from 1510 to 1513 and became friends with Luther
and Lang. He was deeply interested in Humanism and for a while studied
in Italy, where he struck up a friendship with Crotus Rubeanus (see note
7). On his return in 1519 he stayed in Wittenberg again. In 1523 he was
called as a pastor to Breslau, where he introduced the Reformation. Al-
though Hess was basically a Humanist, he was able, like Melanchthon, to
understand Luther and co-operate with him. In later years in Silesia he
curbed the enthusiasts, especially Schwenckfeld.

6 A satire on the treatment of people accused of heresy; for the compli-
cated bibliography of this pamphlet, see WA, Br 1, 604, n. 1.

7 Crotus Rubeanus (the Humanistic name of John Jager) (1480P-1539)
was a famous Humanist of Erfurt who had supported Reuchlin (see p. 9)
and was one of the major contributors to the Epistolae obscurorum virorum
(Letters of Obscure Men); see O.D.C.C., p. 459. From 1517 to 1519 he
was in Italy, where he met Hess. Returning to Erfurt he was elected president
of the University in 1520 and openly expressed his sympathy for Luther,
whom he officially welcomed to Erfurt during the latter s trip to Worms. After
1521, however, he retreated from Luther and finally accepted a canonry in
Halle in 1531 from the Archbishop of Mainz. The Reformers denounced him
for this action. He died in Halle shortly after 1539.

8 See p. 28, n. 10.

143

LETTERS

a treatise on the Eucharist (see p. 134 , n. 4) in which he suggested
following the practice of the early church in distributing both
elements to the communicant . He was charged at once with being
a Bohemian and an heir of Huss’s thought. Reporting in this
letter on his own life and family background , Luther establishes
the fact that he had no connection with the Bohemian people.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br 1, 610-612.

To Mr. George Spalatin 1
Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin, I am very happy and thank God that my
case has progressed to the point that, other charges having been
dismissed, they accuse me now because of my stand on “both
kinds” [in the sacrament] and because of my ancestry. 2 For the
sake of the great mercy of Christ which has been shown to me, a
worthless creature, I hope that I shall not [now] perish on account
of some great and weighty view, for example, [concerning] free
will, grace, and the keys of the church. 3 * * * * 8 For it seems that my
enemies have given up hope of trapping me in these important
points, since they now search out such ridiculous things. Just as

1 This heading is missing in the manuscript copy of this letter but can be
found in some of the oldest printed editions.

2 Even before Luther had published the treatise on the Eucharist in December,
1519 (see the Introduction), he was accused of following Hussite teachings.

This treatise (written in German), however, caused this charge to be wide-
spread among the people, since its front page was decorated with a woodcut

depicting two monstrances. Popular propaganda seized this at once to spread

the statement that Luther maintained the doctrine of the Lord's Supper held

by the Bohemian party known as Utraquists. In addition Luther’s birth was
questioned; his mother, it was rumored, conceived him under peculiar cir-
cumstances, etc. See WA, Br 1, 608, n. 2. Thus Luther was linked with those
Bohemians involved in the Hussite wars. These slanderous rumors became
rather dangerous when, on December 27, 1519, Duke George of Saxony (see
p. 110, n. 20) wrote an official letter to Elector Frederick, accusing Luther of

being a Bohemian. The Duke sent a similar letter to the Council of Regency,
demanding that it put an end to Luther s Hussite agitation. For the letters,
see Akten und Briefe 1, No. 146.

8 On free will and grace, see pp. 25 f., 40, 53 f., 156 ff.; on the keys of the
church, see p. 85, n. 15.

144

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 14, 1520

Christ was crucified because of the title “King of the Jews ,* 4 so I
too [am crucified] because of [my stand on] “both kinds* [in the
sacrament], which I have never commanded to be received [thus]
or prohibited, just as the schoolmen themselves also have taught.

Concerning my family background, no one can give more
trustworthy information than the counts of Mansfeld . 5 I believe
that these nobles have enough of a name and authority in the
Empire to deserve to be believed on this subject. I suspect that
this story about my family background was cooked up by the
Leipzig theologian Ochsenfurt ; 6 in order to spy on us, he also had
pretended that Eck had been killed . 7 He is a man who cannot
stand peace, either for himself or for others, is always ready to
inflict harm-most wretched and yet feeble. I was bom, by the way,
at Eisleben , 8 and baptized there in St. Peter's Church . 9 I do not
remember this, but I believe my parents and the folks at home.
My parents moved there from [a place] near Eisenach. Nearly all
my kinfolk are at Eisenach, and I am known there and recognized
by them even today, since I went to school there for four years , 10
and there is no other town in which I am better known. I hope
the people there would not have been so stupid that any one of
them would call the son of Luther “nephew,” another “uncle,”
another “cousin' (I have many of them there), had they known
that my father and my mother were Bohemians or other such
people, rather than those bom in their midst. The rest of my life
I spent in school 11 and in the monastery at Erfurt 12 until I came

4 Matt. 27:37.

5 One of them was Count Albrecht to whom Luther dedicated the Wartburg
Postil; see p. 337, n. 1.

6 All during 1519 and 1520 Luther and Jerome Dungersheim of Ochsenfurt
were battling each other. Dungersheim (1465-1540) had studied theology at
the University of Leipzig and had received his Master of Arts degree there in
1489. After some advanced theological work at Cologne, he began teaching
in Leipzig shortly after 1496. His controversy with Luther was stirred up by
the Leipzig Disputation (see p. 126).

7 John Eck; see p. 80, n. 13. The circumstances are not known.

8 November 10, 1483.

9 November 11, 1483, St. Martin's Day (in memory of Martin, bishop of Tours;
see O.D.C.C., p. 864).

10 The years 1498-1501. See Fife, pp. 24 ff.

u The years 1501-1505.

12 From July, 1505, on; see p. 3.

145

LETTERS

to Wittenberg . 18 I was also in Magdeburg for one year at the age
of fourteen . 14

Now you know my life and family. I would prefer, however,
to be silent about [my background], just as Christ was silent when
accused before Herod and Annas , 15 so that these furious people
believe something which is worthy of them, until they finally blush.
This is a generation which isn’t moved by either song or mourn-
ing, 16 — in which it is vain to look for a man to help them.

This very hour I have received your letter about Charles
Miltitz; you write that he swore he has not seen me . 17 Why then
did he say to the barber Andrew, who was his traveling companion
as far as Pretisch 18 (as Andrew currently boasts around here),
that he had seen me and had raised up against me I don’t know
what terrible things? But let them lie, invent things, and be as
clever as they please. Everything is against me, and I only wish
something would quickly happen to free me from the obligation
to lecture and teach , 19 for I desire nothing as much as this, as far
as it is up to me. But if I have to continue teaching, my Spalatin,
I do not understand your advice 20 and that of your friends
(whom you mentioned) that sacred theology could be taught
without offending the prelates. Scripture most powerfully attacks
the abuse of holy things, which the prelates cannot bear to hear.

I have surrendered and made myself available [to them] in
the name of the Lord ; 21 his will be done. Who asked him to make

13 Winter semester, 1508/09, for the first time; spring, 1511, permanently.

14 In 1497/98 Luther attended school in Magdeburg; see Fite, pp. 20 f.

15 Luke 23:6-12; John 19:9.

16 See Matt. 11:16-17.

17 On one of his trips (see p. 138) von Miltitz (see p. 97, n. 3) must have
passed through Wittenberg and tried to see Luther. He must have been
unsuccessful; probably to gain prestige, however, he boasted to the con-
trary. Another possibility is that he actually saw Luther but accomplished
nothing; then, to make up for it, he told a different story to the barber.
This second interpretation is suggested by Luther’s question: Why did von
Miltitz boast? Either he lied to Spalatin or to the barber, or the barber lied.

18 Andrew Engelhard, a barber, physician, farmer, “hardware” store owner,
and one of the wealthiest citizens of Wittenberg (see WA, Br 1, 612, n. 9),
must have accompanied von Miltitz to Pretisch, a small village on the Elbe
not far from Wittenberg.

19 For similar statements, see pp. 232, 274.

20 When Spalatin gave this advice is not known. For Luther’s reply, see
pp. 103 f.

21 Luther does not make it clear to whom he has surrendered (tradere) and

146

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 14, 1520

me a doctor [of theology ]? 22 If he has made me one, then he
must have his reasons; if he is sorry that he has made [me a doc-
tor], then let him destroy his work again. This tribulation does
not frighten me at all, but it blows up the sails of my heart with
an incredible wind, so that I experience within myself the reason
demons are compared to winds in Scripture . 28 While they wear
themselves out by their raging, they but strengthen others with
suffering. My only concern is that the Lord be merciful to me in
those matters which are between me and him. Please help me in
this as you can [with your prayers].

Let us, therefore, commit the affairs of men to God in faithful
prayer, and be calm. What can they do? Will they kill [me]?
Will they revive [me] again in order to kill [me] again ? 24 Will
they brand [me] a heretic? Christ was condemned with the
wicked, with the seducers and cursed men . 25 Whenever I meditate
on the Lords Passion, I really burn to think that my tribulation is
not only considered to be “something” by such prominent people,
and so many, but even a most important “something,” when in
reality it is just nothing . 26 We are completely unaccustomed to
suffering and evil, that is, to the Christian life. Therefore let it
be; the more powerfully they 27 rise up, the more securely I laugh
at them. I am determined to fear nothing in this and defy every-

made himself available (off ere). He could mean a surrender to God's will or
making himself available to his enemies. The latter possibility is suggested
by Luther's use of offere, which at that time he generally used to mean
making himself available or presenting himself to his enemies; see p. 74, n. 7.

22 On Luther’s understanding of his office as a doctor of theology, see p. 49,
n. 23.

23 Perhaps Luther was thinking of Eph. 2:2.

24 Luther means that men can kill a person only once and that their power
is hence very limited. Or perhaps he was thinking of the following: the
Council of Constance (1414-1418; see O.D.C.C., pp. 333 f.), which had
sentenced John Huss to be burned at the stake, condemned John Wycliffe
(1329P-1384; see O.D.C.C., pp. 1480 f.) and ordered his bones to be dug
up and burned. When Luther wrote "revive again," he may have been
thinking of this event, asserting that if he too were killed, it would be of
course impossible to revive him and kill him a second time, even though
his corpse could be desecrated.

25 Mark 15:28.

26 For similar statements, see pp. 75, 91.

27 Luther does not make it clear to whom or to what this refers: his enemies,
or the suffering and evil?

147

LETTERS

thing. If I were not afraid of involving the Sovereign , 28 I would
publish a courageous defense to provoke those furies even more
and to ridicule their silly rage against me.

Regarding the widow , 29 I shall talk to you personally.

I have told Philip 80 and also read to him what you wrote.

You are not correct in blaming the Provost of Kemberg ; 31 the
fault is Master Spalatins. I asked you the previous day whether
or not the Sovereign would stay over Sunday. You answered that
you didn't know. After that, no one told me anything about the
sermon . 82 On the other hand I had already promised the Provost
long before to visit him on that day and preach to his people. It
seemed to me that this promise should be kept, since no other
obligation prevented me from doing so. In any case I think there
is no danger involved because of the distance between the two
places . 33

Farewell and pray for me.

January 14, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

To John Lang

Wittenberg, January 26, 1520

In sending Lang the explanation of his December , 1519, treatise
on the Eucharist, Luther discusses the slanderous remarks made
by his enemies about his family background . He comments briefly

28 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

29 Most likely this is a reference to Walpurga Landmann; see p. 142, n. 4.

80 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3; the circumstances are not known,
since Spalatin’s letter is not extant.

81 Bartholomew Bemhardi; see p. 115, n. 21.

82 Spalatin had accompanied the Elector to a meeting in Zerbst which began
on January 8; see WA, Br 1, 608, n. 1. On the way they passed through
^Wittenberg, and Luther was to preach in their presence on a Sunday; the
editor of the WA, Br suggests that this was January 8 and that the question
was whether or not the Elector would still be in Wittenberg then. On
the other hand Luther had promised to preach in Kemberg on that Sunday.
On Luther's preaching in Kemberg, see p. 142, n. 2.

88 This statement is not clear; perhaps Luther is referring to some remarks
he made in his sermon in Kemberg.

148

TO JOHN LANG, JANUARY 26, 1520

on various documents dealing with his case , especially a letter of
Erasmus to the Archbishop of Mainz . He also reports on a new
way of publishing and selling his works on the Psalms and men-
tions a banquet for the Spanish ambassador which he and
Melanchthon had attended .

On John Lang, see p . 14.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 1, 619.

To the Reverend Father John Lang, Master of Sacred Theology,
vicar of the Eremites of St. Augustine at Erfurt, 1
my superior in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. We have nothing new, my Reverend Father, for you
have seen The Unlearned Canons. 2 We shall publish the German
Defense from Niimberg 8 if we can, in view of the lack of time.
I am sending the explanation of my treatise on the Eucharist; 4
it is directed against the wickedness of the people of Leipzig;
they are spreading the rumor that I was bom in Bohemia with
such assurance that they even persuaded the courts of sovereigns.
They have won Duke George, taken him in tow, and make him
extremely hostile toward me.® In fact it is said he has threatened
[the Augustinians at] Dresden with expulsion because of me. 6

1 See p. 6, n. 3.

2 Canonici indocti ( The Unlearned Canons ), a polemical pamphlet published
by John Oecolampadius (see p. 230, n. 14) in 1519, in which he refuted
Eck’s (see p. 80, n. 13) accusation that only the unlearned members of
the less important cathedral chapters sided with Luther; for more details,
see WA, Br 1, 609, n. 5.

*Schutzrede und Christliche Antwort ( Defense and Christian Answer)
(Wittenberg: M. Lotther, 1520). The author was Lazarus Spengler (see
p. 184) of Niimberg, who defended Luther’s 1519 treatise on the Eucharist
(see p. 134, n. 4) and Luther himself against charges of Bohemianism; see
p. 144, n. 2.

4 Verklarung etlicher Artikel ( Explanation of Some Articles) (Wittenberg:
J. Griinenberg, 1520). WA 6, 78 ff. This is Luther’s defense of his 1519
treatise on the Eucharist; see p. 134, n. 4.

5 Luther means that the Faculty of Leipzig (see p. 63, n. 24), and Eck,
gained the upper hand over Duke George (see p. 110, n. 20) and duped
him. And in this he was right; see p. 144, n. 2.

8 This statement— or rumor— was based on the following: Duke George (see
note 5) wrote to his chancellor Doctor John Kochel that he had found out
that the Augustinians of Dresden (which was within his territory) were

149

LETTERS

The Second Lectures on the Psalms 7 will be published in a
new way, since the printer has suffered a loss because of the many
printed sheets he still has left . 8 In addition it eventually will be
published in a more distinguished type face by Lotther s press . 9

Some people have in hand a magnificent letter of Erasmus to
the Cardinal of Mainz. [Erasmus] is quite concerned about me
[in this letter] (perhaps it will be published sometime) and protects
me quite nobly, yet in his usual skilful way, which is to defend me
strongly while seeming not to defend me at all . 10

The Ambassador of the Spaniards is staying with our Sover-
eign . 11 I and Philip 12 dined 13 with him yesterday; it was a

reading Wycliffe’s and Huss’s books; if they dared to follow the Augus-
tinians of Wittenberg, then he would replace them with other friars; see
Akten und Briefe 1, Nos. 264 f.

7 Luthers Second Lectures on the Psalms; see p. 131, n. 7.

8 From this time on Luther published this work in a way that can be
compared to the modern subscription system: the buying of a first fascicle
meant the purchase of the whole work; therefore the sale of the first fascicle
could serve as a basis for estimating how many of the following fascicles
should be printed. To the best of our knowledge, Luther’s Second Lectures
on the Psalms and Karlstadt’s edition of Augustine’s On the Spirit and the
Letter (see p. 54, n. 7) were the first books ever published this way.

9 The Second Lectures on the Psalms were being published by John Griinen-
berg, who had only old and undistinguished type faces; see p. 19, n. 8. It
seems, however, that Lotther never published the edition Luther envisions.

10 Erasmus to Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz: October 19, 1519. Allen 4,
1033; S-J 1, 238 ff. Erasmus stated in this letter that although he was not
familiar with Luther’s writings, he thought that Luther was being treated
unfairly. He demanded a fair trial for the Reformer and made the cor-
ruption within the Roman church responsible for Luther’s attacks on Rome.
Then he stated that this corruption was the reason that both Humanistic
studies and Luther were suffering. In a “skilful way” he disassociated him-
self from Luther, directing attention to the importance of Humanistic
studies and the ignorance and ill will of those who attacked all good men.
Luther realized only too well that this letter was not particularly concerned
with him. Ulrich von Hutten (see p. 163, n. 1), the carrier of this letter
to the addressee, published it at once; he wanted to demonstrate Erasmus’
positive attitude toward Luther. During the summer of 1520 many editions
of this letter appeared all over Germany (Cologne, Wittenberg, Niimberg)
in an attempt to stamp Erasmus either as a member of the Reformation
camp (by the idealistic adherents of the Reformation) or as a heretic (the
goal of members of the Roman opposition).

11 The Imperial ambassador Jerome Brunner visited Elector Frederick (see
pp. 49 f.) in Zerbst (see p. 148, n. 32) and returned with him to Lochau
via Wittenberg; on January 25 the Electoral party stayed in Wittenberg.

12 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

13 The earliest printed editions offer certavimus, "we struggled,” which
makes little sense. The manuscript copy reads coenavimus, "we dined.”

150

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, ABOUT FEBRUARY 14, 1520

splendid party! You will soon see in print the address 14 Philip
delivered yesterday.

Farewell and pray for me.

January 26, 1520

Greet the Reverend Father, Master Bartholomew Usingen , 15
and Nathin , 16 and all the others.

Friar Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, about February 14, 1520 1

Luther soon realized that one of the major shortcomings in the
church of his time was the comparative lack of a thorough knowl-
edge of Scripture, on the part of both clergy and laity . Therefore
beginning in the winter of 1519 he worked on a series of sermons
which were to explain the Gospels and Epistles for each Sunday of
the church year. In this letter he encloses a sample of this work.
Realizing the uproar the Bohemian charge against him had caused,
Luther emphasizes his good conscience and the confidence in which
he entrusts everything to God. He is very surprised to find that
many of his thoughts are the same as Huss’s.

On Luthers concern for bringing the message of the church
to the people, see p. 113, n. 10. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 41-42.

To my dearest friend George Spalatin, beloved in Christ

14 O. Clemen (ed.), Supplementa Melanchthoniana , 6, I, 87 ff. According to
Spalatin’s information, Melanchthon’s address dealt with the differentiation
between true and Scholastic theology; see WA, Br 1, 620, n. 9.

15 Bartholomew Amoldi of Usingen; see p. 30, n. 18.

16 John Nathin; see p. 6, n. 2.

1 On the dating of this letter, see WA, Br 2, No. 254, Introduction.

151

LETTERS

Jesus

Greetings. I am sending a sample of the Gospels and Epistles. 2 *
It may show that I have been extremely busy— yet the work has
not fulfilled my expectations. This matter demands a man’s com-
plete attention (as I see); therefore I am almost sorry that I
began it.

I have consulted friends in regard to writing our Sovereign 8
for advice. I realize that [this time] it is impossible for me to
offer peace or have it offered in my name without endangering
respect. 4 Up to now I have offered enough, 5 and I stand alone.
I have always been dragged into this affair, and now it is not right
to withdraw as long as Eck 6 keeps shouting. 1 7 have to entrust
this affair to God and let myself be led, yielding the ship to the
winds and waves. I can do only one thing, that is, to ask God
for mercy. 8

I have heard that there will be some tremendous uproar in
the future if God will not restrain Satan. 9 I am aware of Satan’s
fiendish plans for my ruin and the ruin of many others. What do
you want? God’s word 10 can never be handled without causing

2 Sermons on portions of the Epistles and Gospels read at mass on Sundays
in accordance with the prescribed order of the church year. On February
8, 1520, Luther reported to Spalatin that he was working on a series of
sermons to cover the period from Advent to Easter; see WA, Br 2, 30.
Spalatin must then have asked for a sample, which Luther is now sending.
See also pp. 237 ff.

8 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f. The manuscript copy of this letter added
“our” to “friends,” but then shows it crossed out.

4 Luther wrote pietatis, which can also mean piety or godliness. Spalatin
must have suggested that Luther ask for the Elector’s mediation in some
dispute; it could not be established, however, between whom the Elector was
to mediate. Luther and Eck? Luther and Duke George?

5 For Luthers offers, see p. 74, n. 7; pp. 97 ff., 127 ff., 246. In letters of
February 4, 1520, to the Bishop of Merseburg and Cardinal Albrecht of
Mainz, Luther had again expressed his willingness to listen to the judg-
ment of the church and had asked to be shown where he erred. For the
letters, see WA, Br 2, 24 ff.; S-J 1, 281 f.

6 John Eck; see p. 80, n. 13.

7 At this point the printed editions read enim, i.e., “for” or “namely,” which
is missing in the manuscript copy.

8 For similar statements, see pp. 162, 183, 194.

9 Luther may be referring to some rumors about further hostile actions—
perhaps on the part of Duke George; see p. 149, n. 0.

10 Literally: “word of godliness.

158

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, ABOUT FEBRUARY 14, 1520

storm, tumult, and danger . 11 The word is of an infinite majesty,
accomplishes great things, is wonderful in high and lofty matters ; 12
as the prophet says, “It kills the fat ones in Israel and checks her
chosen men .” 13 Therefore in this affair one has either to abandon
the desire for peace and quietness, or one has to deny the word
[of God]. The war is the Lord’s, who did not come to bring
peace . 14 Therefore give up the hope of advancing Christ’s cause
on earth in peace and pleasantness, since you can see that Christ
has fought with his own blood, and all the martyrs after him.

I have taught and held all the teachings of John Huss, but
thus far did not know it . 15 John Staupitz 16 has taught it in the
same unintentional way. In short we all are Hussites and did not
know it. Even Paul and Augustine are in reality Hussites. See the
monstrous things into which we fall, I ask you, even without the
Bohemian leader and teacher. I am so shocked that I do not know
what to think when I see such terrible judgments of God over mam
kind, namely, that the most evident evangelical truth was burned
in public and 17 was already considered condemned more than
one hundred years ago. Yet one is not allowed to avow this . 18
Woe to this earth.

F arewell. Martin Luther

11 For similar statements, see pp. 104, 140.

12 p s . 93:4 (Vulgate),
is Ps. 78:31 (Vulgate),
i* Matt. 10:34.

15 During the Disputation at Leipzig (see p. 126), Luther was visited by
a member of the Hussite church in Bohemia. Having told his visitor he
wanted to read something by Huss, Luther received a copy of Huss’s De
ecclesia (On the Church) on October 3, 1519 (see O.D.C.C., pp. 667jL)«
The result of Luther’s study of this book by Huss is the statement: “We
all are Hussites and did not know it.” See p. 155, n. 7.
i® John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1.

17 The manuscript copy of this letter reads et (“and”) which was later
changed to pro , i.e., “for.”

18 The fact that John Huss, whom Luther now had discovered to be a
teacher of evangelical truth, was condemned by the Council of Constance
and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415.

153

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, March 19, 1520

Luther discusses the calling of a professor of Hebrew. He also
comments on the publication of a work by Huss, and on “signs*
in the sky.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 72.

To the venerable Mr. George Spalatin, servant of Christ,
court chaplain, etc., my dearest friend in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. I thought you had written Doctor Kopp , 1 my Spalatin,
about the Most Illustrious Sovereign’s 2 3 decision concerning Wer-
ner . 8 Therefore I admonished Kopp in a letter 4 to speed the mans
arrival here. You will see what he answers.

1 Gregory Kopp of Kalbe ( one of the house physicians of Cardinal Albrecht
of Mainz; see pp. 44 f.) studied in Wittenberg and Frankfurt/Oder.
Kopp had recommended to Spalatin Werner Einhora of Bacharach as in-
structor of Hebrew for the University of Wittenberg; see WA, Br 2, 50,
n. 6. On Februaiy 24, 1520, the University was to decide on Einhom's
call (see WA, Br 2, 48). The University must have invited him to come
for an interview since Luther mentions a letter in which he urged Kopp
to speed Einhom’s arrival in Wittenberg. Einhora was third on a list of
candidates (Keller, see p. 123, n. 5; Adrian, see p. 132, n. 1). At this point
the University was stalling with regard to Adrian to take a look at Einhora;
see p. 160. It is not known whether Einhom ever followed this invitation
to come to Wittenberg.

2 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f .

3 Werner Einhom of Bacharach, a convert from Judaism to Christianity,
was an instructor of Hebrew. Little is known of his life. He had matric-
ulated in Erfurt in 1518, in Tubingen in February, 1523, and in Ingolstadt
in April, 1523, and there he apparently was employed to teach for three
years. In the fall of 1523 he reported a fellow faculty member to the
Inquisition. It seems that in various heresy trials he served as a crown
witness for the Inquisition; see WA, Br 2, 50, n. 6. Perhaps these strong
leanings toward the traditional forces within the church prevented Einhom
from accepting the invitation to Wittenberg.

4 This letter is not extant.

154

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MARCH 19, 1520

I am sending [the work] of the asses of Louvain and Cologne, 5
which I am now answering in print. 6 Read John Huss’s [book], 7
too, if you wish, and return it when you have read it Not only
does the work please all people, but its spirit and leamedness
are wonderful. Two thousand copies have been printed by Thomas
Anshelm.

It is said that you have new books, like the one about the
flames and fires that were seen in the sky over Vienna. 8 I would
like to take a look at those books. Perhaps my tragedy too is con-
tained in them, as it was in former [signs]. 9
Farewell and pray for me.

Wittenberg, March 19, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

5 After Luther's Latin works had been reprinted in February, 1519 (see
p. 110, n. 16), the theologians of the University of Louvain collected certain
of Luther's statements which they branded as heresy and sent to the
University of Cologne. On August 30, 1519, the University of Cologne con-
demned Luther, and on November 7, 1519, Louvain did the same. Both
universities sent their verdicts to the Inquisitor for Aragon and Navarre,
Cardinal Adrian, bishop of Tortosa (who in 1522 became Pope Adrian VI;
see O.D.C.C., p. 601). In February, 1520, this material was published by
Dirk Martens in Louvain. Luther is now sending it to Spalatin; it is not
clear, however, whether he is sending a manuscript copy which he obtained
in a way unknown to us, or a copy of the Martens edition.

6 Responsio Lutheriana ad condemnationem doctrinalem per magistros
nostros Lovanienses et Colonienses factam ( Martin Luthers Reply to the
Doctrinal Condemnation Issued by the Faculties of Louvain ana Cologne )
(Wittenberg: M. Lotther, 1520). WA 6, 181 ff.

7 John Huss, De ecclesia (On the Church) (Hagenau: T. Anshelm, 1520).
See p. 153, n. 15. For the text and bibliography, see S. H. Thomson (ed.),
Magistri Johannis Huss, Tractatus De Ecclesia (University of Colorado
Press, 1956).

8 For these meteorological “signs” and a bibliography of books dealing with
them, see WA, Br 2, 73, n. 6.

9 Perhaps Luther is thinking of the lightning near Stottemheim which ter-
rified him and was partially responsible for his vow to enter a monastery
if St. Anne would protect him from the storm. See Bainton, pp. 21 f.

155

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, April 13, 1520 1

In response to a request by Spalatin , Luther explains John 15:5,
and distinguishes between his understanding of it and that found
in Scholastic theology.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f .

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 80-82 .

Mr. George Spalatin
Jesus

Greetings. I have received the question, my Spalatin, which you
have asked about the meaning of Christs word in John 15 [:5],
“Without me you can do nothing.”

To begin with, I think you know the two discerptions (I
meant to say distinctions) 2 of our teachers 3 which were taught
about this passage. The first one of these is: Gods “influence”
is of two kinds, general and specific. They understand this as
follows: through the “general influence” we are able to do those
things which nature is able to do without grace. They consider
such things to be neither meritorious nor sinful but rather neutral,
or morally good works, such as walking, standing, working, praying,

1 The autograph is undated; on the date, see note 17 and WA, Br 2, No. 277,
Introduction.

2 Distinctio, i.e., a subdivision in the arguments of the schoolmen about
a certain statement, or thought, differentiating between certain opinions
concerning it.

8 Luther, of course, generalized here. For the Scholastic opinions on this
subject, which one may assume Luther had studied, see, e.g., Peter Lombard,
Sentences, II, dist. XXIV, cap. 1; XXV, 5; XXVI, 1; XXVII, 4; William
of Occam, Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, IV, ques. 8,
9; II, ques. 19 A; I, ques. 17, 2 E; Gabriel Biel, Commentary on the
Sentences of Peter Lombard, II, dist. XXVI, cap. 9. The classical formula-
tion of this thought was given by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I,
ques. 1; ques. 2, art. 2; II, 1, ques. 109-114. See also A. M. Fairweather
(ed.), Aquinas on Nature and Grace . LCC 11, 35 ff., 137 ff. For general
information, see O.D.C.C., pp. 576 f.; E. Gilson, Reason and Revelation in
the Middle Ages (New York, 1954).

136

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, APRIL 13, 1520

eating, and whatever else we see done externally by people which
is not plainly wrong. Through the “specific influence” we are
enabled to do those things which are [done in the realm] of grace,
and are beyond [the capability of] nature; that is to say, only by
this influence can we do meritorious works, and avoid sin. Conse-
quently the “general influence” pertains to being and activity [in
the realm] of nature, 4 while the “specific influence” pertains to
being and activity [in the realm] of grace. 5

Now follows the second distinction : there is a difference be-
tween an action which begins something 6 and an action which is
completed. 7 The action which begins something pertains to the
realm of the “general influence,” the action which is completed
pertains to the realm of the “specific influence.” 8

When it is said, “You can do nothing without me,” 9 it means
in this context that without the “specific influence” we can do
nothing perfectly. Of course on the basis of the “general influence”
we can indeed do something which as a “beginning action” is
good. 10 This means that on the basis of the “general influence”
we can prepare ourselves by our own strength for receiving grace
(or the “specific influence”) so that we may do something meri-
torious; we cannot, however, do something meritorious in itself
by this “[general] influence” and by our own strength. This is the
way this passage has been understood and explained so far.

Christ totally rejects, however, the “general influence,” or the
natural existence, because nature cannot but seek that which is its
own and [thus] abuse the gifts of God. Christ declares simply
and without distinction that without the “specific” (as [the school-
men] call it) “influence”— or the grace of God— nothing can be
done that in the eyes of God is not worthy [only] of fire. And

*Esse et operari naturae, i.e., natural existence, or existence not exposed
,to the infusion of the grace of God.

6 Esse et operari gratiae , i.e., existence exposed to the infusion of the grace
of God, the specific influence.

6 Inchoative . . . facere.

7 Perfective facere.

8 Compare Luther's report on the Scholastic argumentation with Thomas
Aquinas' Summa Theologica , I, ques. I, arts. 1-6; II, 1, ques. 109-111, 113,
arts. 2-5, 7-8. LCC 11, 35 ff.; 137 ff., 169 ff., 185 ff., 193 ff.

9 John 15:5.

10 See note 6.

1ST

LETTERS

so [Christ] goes on to say, "Whoever does not abide in me will be
thrown away like a branch and will wither and people will gather
it up and throw it into the fire and it will bum.” 11 Now see, the
branch which is not in Christ not only does not grow and bring
fruit, but it also withers (that is, weakens and perishes); not only
does it weaken and wither, but it is also taken and cut off from
the vine and thrown into the fire, etc. In this way he who is only
supported by the “general influence” and the strength of nature
continuously gets worse and farther away from Christ; he is being
prepared for the fire, no matter how much he outwardly appears
to be moral and to do good.

Here we should realize that we cannot do anything without
Christ, either through a "general” or a “specific influence.” [We
should see that] whatever is done only on die basis of the "general
influence,” however outstanding it may be, is rather against Christ
than for Christ; this becomes obvious enough in the case of hypo-
crites, who do great and many things but do them with the worst
motivation.

As a result, Christ reminds [us] with such earnestness that the
branches should remain in him as in a vine. It is impossible for
them not to become continuously worse if they do not remain in
him, just as it is impossible for those who stray not to err con-
standy more and more unless they return to the way. Here abso-
lutely no distinction is necessary (as though, for instance, the
“general influence” were not [itself] the way of error) since already
this [“general influence”] is a gift of God, given to those who
are unworthy and who constandy abuse it, as wine and gold are
daily abused by godless people.

At this point you could say that the gift bestowed by God is
good, but that its use cannot be good unless those who use it have
been healed by grace. The “general influence” (this dangerous
term), which is being and activity [in the realm] of nature, 12 if
used by anyone who does not remain as a branch in Christ, is
misused and of no avail. Just as to the pure all things are pure,
so to the unclean nothing is clean; Titus 1 [:15]. And as for the

n John 15:6.
12 See note 4.

158

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, APRIL 16, 1520

saints everything works together for good , 18 so for the ungodly
everything works for evil. Who can deny that a fornicator,
adulterer, murderer, or blasphemer does his deed with the help
of the “general influence”? How can he do these things unless he
possesses being and activity [in the realm] of nature ? 14 Yet who
would dare to say that his deeds are actions which begin the
good 15 and prepare him for grace? Therefore a deed done with-
out grace, however good it may appear to be, can be nothing but
bad and contrary to grace, since without grace there is no good
desire in the heart of man; it can by no means be an action which
begins 16 conditioning man for the receiving of grace.

All these points, of course, touch that most important and
time-consuming topic of grace and free will very briefly indeed.
For this reason one cannot solve all problems in so few words.

Farewell and pray for me.

The hour in which you left . [April 13, 1520 ] 17

Martin Luther
Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, April 16, 1520

Luther comments on the calling of Matthew Adrian or Werner
Einhorn of Bacharach as professor of Hebrew. He also tells of a
rumor concerning his own possible assassination.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 82-83.

To my dearest friend in the Lord, Mr. George Spalatin, a
servant of Christ in the castle at Lochau 1

13 Rom. 8:28. ~~

14 See note 4.

15 See note 6.

16 For a similar statement, see p. 25.

17 The date was added by Spalatin.

1 Residence of the Elector of Saxony.

1 59

LETTERS

Jesus

Greetings. We have agreed with Adrian , 2 my Spalatin, that he
should wait a little. He promised to remain for eight days in
Berlin, and await a letter from us. Now our task is to get an
answer from Werner of Bacharach as soon as possible . 3 Adrian,
of course, demands a salary of one hundred gulden in all. In this
whole affair we have to be extremely careful that, as the saying
goes, in trying to sit on two chairs, we don’t fall between them!
This would be the case if we should turn down this one and the
other should by chance go somewhere else, either of his own
accord or because he was called by Mainz. Many of our friends
have strongly urged me to see that Matthew be hired, at least for
a year . 4 [We should do this], they believe, if only to avoid any
notoriety, because that Eclipse , 5 rumor has it, might call him just
out of spite for us. However, if you cannot reply in such a short
time what is to be done, then one should at least write this to him
in Berlin, so that he does not become annoyed at a further delay
in this affair. I suspect he has made up his mind to accept a
Hebrew professorship either at Frankfurt 6 or Leipzig if we do
not call him. Do answer quickly.

Concerning my case, it is said that the most severe of all
punishments is ready for me. As to this, the Provost of the Neu-
werk [Chapter] in Halle 7 had me “warned and advised,” as they
call it. Even certain of my enemies who were sorry for me sent
me a warning through friends from Halberstadt that there is a
certain doctor of medicine 8 who, with the help of magic, can make
himself invisible at will and then kill someone; he [supposedly]

2 Matthew Adrian; see p. 132, n. 1.

3 Werner of Bacharach; see p. 154, n. 3.

4 This matter was soon settled. Luther wrote on April 30 ( see WA, Br

2, 94) that Adrian had been called for a salary of one hundred gulden.

6 Eclipsis ( a Latin word meaning absent ) is a pun for Lipsim or Leipzig and
seems to have been used occasionally during Luthers time; see WA, Br
2, 83, n. 5.

6 The University of Frankfurt/Oder was founded in 1506.

7 This was Nicholas Demuth, provost of the Neuwerk Chapter of Augus-
tinian Regular Canons (see O.D.C.C., p. 109) in Halle, who was held in
high regard for his Humanistic learning. After 1523 he sided with Luther.
See WA, Br 2, 83, n. 7. The circumstances of the warning are not known.

8 Not known.

160

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 1, 1520

has the order to kill Luther and is to arrive here next Sunday 9
when the relics 10 are being shown. This is a persistent rumor.
Farewell.

April 16, 1520 Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, May 1, 1520

In spite of a violent campaign on the part of Rome against the
University of Wittenberg and its “heretical” faculty, increasing
numbers of students went there to study. In this letter Luther
reports on the lack of housing for these students and the faculty.
He also mentions some of the everyday matters that reach his desk.
On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: W A, Br 2, 96.

To my friend George Spalatin, venerable and dear in the
Lord, chaplain to the Elector of Saxony, a servant of Christ

Jesus

Greetings. I am returning the letter of your Dean 1 and adding
to it what I received from Niimberg. 2 Matthew Adrian 3 sug-
gests that we should write to Doctor Pascha 4 at Magdeburg for
Hebrew books. As soon as you have done so, I shall do it too,
and in a hurry. See to it that it is done. I shall do my part.

The number of students increases every day, but the small
city cannot hold them all and many are forced to go away again. 5

9 Misericordias Domini, which fell on April 22.

10 See pp. 33 f.; p. 338, n. 8.

1 Konrad Gerhard, the dean of the chapter at Altenburg, of which Spalatin
was a member; see WA y Br 2, 96, n. 1. The letter is not extant.

2 Perhaps Luther included the letter from von Staupitz and the one from
Link, which he mentions below.

8 Matthew Adrian was finally called to Wittenberg as professor of Hebrew.

4 Apparently Busse de Alvesleben, a canon and provost in Magdeburg who
was in the diplomatic service of Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz (on Albrecht,
see pp. 44 f.); for more details, see WA, Br 2, 96, n. 2.

5 Between 1516 and 1520 an average of five or six hundred students a year

161

LETTERS

We cannot provide lodging for Adrian to suit this man. We
do not wish to push others out because of him, even though he
is now starting to work on us to do so. Should he write anything
about this or discuss it with you (for he wanted to present his
case personally there), 6 you know my opinion and Philip’s. 7 We
shall not have a part in or consent to having anyone pushed out
of the city treasurers house or anyone else’s, if they are unwilling
to move; if they wish to leave out of kindness, we shall be pleased
and grateful.

If you can obtain a reply for our widow Landmann, 8 whether
negative or positive, for goodness’ sake do so quickly. I have dis-
covered something in this case which is trivial but which almost
makes me sorry that I became mixed up in this business. Now
everything is entangled and confused. Consequently I have tried
to persuade her that if everything should not come out according
to her wishes, she should be satisfied with what can be brought
about, and drop the rest; 9 peace is better than war. I do not know
whether I accomplished anything.

Farewell in the Lord.

I have received a letter from Staupitz in Numberg. 10 He
finally praises my cause and has a firmer hope for it, which is
certainly different from what I am used to hearing from him.
Wenceslas 11 writes, “We have received the Doctrinal Asses ” 12
and he is of good hope. Thus my ship is tossed about: now hope,
now fear rules; but this does not concern me.

Wittenberg , May I, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian 13

attended the University of Wittenberg; yet Wittenberg had only approxi-
mately twenty-three hundred inhabitants. See WA, Br 2, 97, n. 3.

6 At the court of the Elector.

7 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

8 See p. 142, n. 4.

9 Literally: “. . . her wishes, she should permit to go that which can go,
fall, that which falls; peace. . . ."

10 This letter of John von Staupitz (see p. 64, n. 1) is not extant.

11 Wenceslas Link; see pp. 169 f.

12 This is the condemnation of Luther’s thought and work which was issued
by the faculties of the universities of Louvain and Cologne; see p. 155, nn.
5, 6.

13 The postscript to this letter is omitted here.

162

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 31, 1520

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, May 31, 1520

Luther is asking Spalatin to forward some letters for him. He
reports on rumors concerning the University of Leipzig and com-
plains about the inefficiency of the Wittenberg city government .
On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2 , 111 .

To my dearest friend in the Lord, Master George Spalatin,
court chaplain and secretary, a most honest friend

Jesus

Greetings. I am enclosing letters to Hutten , 1 Sickingen , 2 and our
Taubenheim , 3 my Spalatin. Please take on the job of forwarding

1 Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523), a Franconian noble, was the most colorful
and important representative of a Humanism that combined strong nation-
alistic feeling with opposition to Rome. In 1505 he ran away from the
famous school of the Benedictine monastery of Fulda and began the life of
a wandering student, poet, and knight. He sided with Reuchlin and was
a major contributor to the Letters of Obscure Men (see p. 9, n. 2). In 1517
he was made poet laureate by Emperor Maximilian and was appointed court
poet by the Archbishop of Mainz. After the Leipzig Disputation von
Hutten saw in Luther the most powerful element for bringing about his
major concern: the freeing of the Empire from the influence of the Roman
hierarchy and restoring the glory of the Empire. Praising Luther and at
the same time attacking the corruption within the Roman church, von
Hutten set out on a powerful anti-Roman drive (see p. 193, n. 13; p. 231,
n. 16), without, however, actually professing the faiih of the Reformation.
As an admirer of both Erasmus and Luther, he tried hard to create unity
between Humanism and the Reformation; see p. 150, n. 10. When Erasmus
rejected these efforts, Hutten turned against him and quarreled violently
with the great Humanist. Later, when Rome began to act against von
Hutten, he took up refuge at the castle of Francis von Sickingen. Pre-
vented by sickness from participating in von Sickingen's war against the
Archbishop of Trier, von Hutten escaped von Sickingen’s disastrous defeat
and found refuge in Switzerland with Ulrich Zwingu. He died a lonely,
sick, and disillusioned man. See O.D.C.C., p. 668 f.

2 Francis von Sickingen; see pp. 244 f.

8 John von Taubenheim, a member of a long established Saxon noble family,
apparently came to the Electoral court in his early youth. In 1504/05 he
was reported as studying in Leipzig, and in 1513 he was appointed by
Elector Frederick as administrator of the Electoral household, a position

LETTERS

them; try especially to see that Taubenheim gets his at once, since
I have delayed longer in answering him than he perhaps has
expected.

Lonicer will finish his work tomorrow . 4 The people of Leipzig,
anxious to retain students, boast that Erasmus 5 is coming to them.
How busy, and yet how miserable, envy is! When they derided
us a year ago as being “extinct, 1 * they did not foresee that this very
cross would hang over them too . 6 The Lord rules so we can
feel it.

It is said that Ochsenfurt 7 arms himself against Feldkirch’s
little book, in which he was ridiculed . 8 I have completed some-
thing in German against the ass Alveld; it is already being
printed . 9

he continued to hold even after the death of the Elector in 1525. As
administrator of the Electoral household von Taubenheim was deeply in-
volved in the financial, political, and administrative affairs of Electoral
Saxony. As a result Luther was very interested in having von Taubenheim
join die teams of visitors, who in 1527/28 set out to inspect and organize
the parishes of Electoral Saxony. In 1532/33 von Taubenheim took over
the office of Landrentmeister of Electoral Saxony, a position comparable to
a present-day controller general. Von Taubenheim died in 1541 or 1542.
See ARG 8 (1911), 37 ff. None of the letters mentioned by Luther is extant.

4 John Lonicer, an Augustinian from Eisleben who was then studying in
Wittenberg for his Master’s degree, was Luther’s famulus, or private
assistant; the famulus assisted the professor in return for tutoring. Under
Luther's guidance, he wrote a sharp pamphlet against Alveld (see note
9), who had attacked Luther’s view on the primacy of the pope. Luther
is referring to this work. For the bibliography, see WA 6, 279; On Lonicer,
who later became a professor in Marburg, see WA, Br 2, 99, n. 10.

5 Erasmus of Rotterdam; see pp. 116 f.

6 After the disputation in 1519 (see p. 126), the University of Leipzig
boasted (see p. 134, n. 3) that Wittenberg, that "nest of Hussite heresy,’
then suffering from the plague, would soon cease to draw any students.
Now it was Leipzig’s turn to suffer.

7 Jerome Dungersheim of Ochsenfurt; see p. 145, n. 6.

8 John Bemhardi of Feldkirch ( not to be confused with his brother Bar-
tholomew Bemhardi; see p. 115, n. 21) wrote a pamphlet against Alveld
(see note 9) in which he also attacked Dungersheim. John Bemhardi was
a student of Melanchthon and in a short time became professor of philosophy
at the University of Wittenberg. In 1531 he was president of the Uni-
versity. See C.R. 1, No. 75; O. Clemen (ed.), Supplementa Melanchthoniana,
6, I, 103 f.

Won dem Papstum zu Rom, wider den hochberiihmten Romanisten zu
Leipzig ( The Papacy at Rome: An Answer to the Celebrated Romanist at
Leipzig) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, June, 1520). WA 6, 285 ff.; PE
1, 337 ff. Asked by the Bishop of Merseburg to defend the primacy of the
pope, Augustine Alveld, a Franciscan of Leipzig, published an attack in 1520

164

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JUNE 25, 1520

Advise me whether I should write to the Sovereign 10 for his
help in our city affairs. Everything is very expensive, the sup-
plies brought in are insufficient, nor is anything administered prop-
erly in this most confused and careless city. Something could be
accomplished at Wittenberg, were there any order in the city
government. Here there is need for the counsel and authority of
the Sovereign. Please answer.

Farewell.

Wittenberg , , May 31, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, June 25, 1520

Luther is commenting on Melanchthon s academic responsibilities
and personal life .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 130; translation based on S-J 1, 332 .

To the learned and good man, George Spalatin, a servant and
a priest of Christ, my friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. It seems both to me and to many others, my Spalatin,
that Philip 1 should not be burdened with the course on Pliny, 3

'against Luther; for the bibliography, see WA 6, 277. Lonicer and John
Bemhardi assumed the task of answering Alveld. While they were working
on their rebuttals, Alveld published a second attack against Luther, this
time in German; for the bibliography, see WA 6, 280. Luther felt compelled
to answer, which he did with the work mentioned; it was completed on
June 26.

10 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

1 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3. On Luther's worry that Melanchthon
worked too much, see p. 119, n. 10.

2 One of Luther’s major aims was to break the dominance of Scholasticism
at the University of Wittenberg and replace it with Humanistic studies. On
March 11, 1518, he sent Spalatin a program for the reorganization of the

165

LETTERS

on account of his lectures on the Apostle Paul, which are so
fruitful. The students should not be deprived [of this blessing]
since what they would get out of Pliny could in no way com-
pensate for it. We should fear that it may be the Spirit (whom
we should not rashly resist) who moved Philip to lecture [on
Paul] and that it may perhaps be Satan’s plot by which, under
this cover , 3 the cultivation of such great fruit should be hindered.
We think that if Pliny is to be taught at all, it should be turned
over to Master John Hess . 4

I don’t know what [Melanchthon] will do about marrying,
especially as far as the girl you mentioned is concerned . 5 I wish
the man a wife; but on the other hand I do not want to be
held responsible for nor advise him in his selection. I also do
not see that the man is eager to marry.

Although I hope Philip is not leaning toward the Bavarians , 6
yet it is true that I have always wished that he be honored with
a more respectable salary, so that he might nullify the hopes

Liberal Arts School; see WA, Br 1, No. 63. Apparently the Elector approved
this program. On March 21, 1518, Luther wrote Lang as if he had some
definite reason to hope that his suggestions would be adopted; see WA,
Br 1, 155. In the summer semester of 1518, the University curriculum
underwent its first major change, and further steps were to be taken. See
pp. 38, 41 f., 63, 82, 95 f., 106 f.. Ill f., 123 f., 125, 132 f., 160. In
1520 it was Melanchthon's turn to take over the course on Pliny, in addition
to lecturing on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The Pliny course was to
cover some books of the Naturalis Historia (History of Nature) by Pliny
the Elder (see O.C.D., p. 704).

3 I.e., that Melanchthon has to lecture on Pliny.

4 This John Hess was Master John Eissermann ( not to be confused with
the John Hess mentioned on p. 143, n. 5). At Wittenberg in the years
following 1518 he alternated between giving courses on Aristotle's Peri ta
zoa istoria (one of Aristotle's works on natural science, generally known as
Historia Animalium) and on Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria (The Education
of an Orator). According to the plans for reorganizing the curriculum,
he was to drop the course on Aristotle (see WA, Br 1, No. 222); for Luther's
criticism of Aristotle's work on natural science, see p. 112. Having finished
his course on Quintilian, he was to begin lecturing on Pliny's De animalibus
(On Zoology, a portion of Pliny's Naturalis Historia ), so that Melanchthon
would not have to spend time on it. Hess became president of Wittenberg
University in 1527, and then he went to the University of Marburg where
he later became chancellor; he died there in 1558.

5 Melanchthon married Catharine Crapp on November 27, 1520; she was
the daughter of the mayor of Wittenberg.

6 The University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria was at that time discussing an ap-
pointment for Melanchthon; see C.R. 1, 262.

166

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JULY 14, 1520

they have conceived because they know that he is here on a
smaller salary than he would be there . 7 If there should be an
occasion to further this cause, be alert to it. For no one should
neglect caring for himself when an opportunity arises, that is,
when God calls.

I shall, in its proper place, mention the tragedy of Strassburg
in a satisfactory way . 8 Tomorrow Sylvester will be concluded , 9
and also the Romanist in German . 10

Farewell.

June 25, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, July 14, 1520

In a clash between town and gown , Luther took the side of the
town . In this letter he requests the Electoral government to
censure the President of the University , who had done nothing
to prevent the disorderly conduct of the students.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 142-143.

To the learned and good man, Master George Spalatin, court
chaplain, my superior in the Lord

7 For similar statements, see pp. 78, 107, 269.

8 The Bishop of Strassburg tried to do away with the corruption of his clergy
and to reorganize the ecclesiastical system in his diocese. However he was
hindered by papal interference. Luther dealt with this event in greater detail
in his little book To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation ( see p. 171,
n. 5); see WA 6, 422; PE 2, 90.

9 In the fall of 1519 Sylvester Prierias (see p. 71, n. 7; p. 72, n. 14)
had published a comprehensive work against Luther in which he claimed to
demonstrate that the dogmatic resolutions issued by the pope were to be
considered as decisions from heaven. The Reformer did not consider it
necessary to write a reply; he only reprinted it, adding some rather sarcastic
notes; his reference is to this edition. See WA 6, 328 ff.

10 For the answer to the Romanist, see p. 164, n. 9.

167

LETTERS

Greetings. I beseech you earnestly, my Spalatin, if you have any
influence with the Most Illustrious Sovereign , 1 persuade him to
write an extremely harsh and severe letter to our President . 2
Yesterday in his great folly, the President almost involved us in
murder and bloodshed . 8 That senseless man stirred up a riot on
the part of a student mob against the city council and innocent
people, which he should have curbed instead. I was present at
the senate meeting where they 4 raged as though they were totally
drunk. Nothing was said except what would incite the fierceness
of the young people even more. This disorder in our University
infuriates me; it will finally bring us real disgrace. Doctor Peter
Lupin 5 spoke excellently against the riot, but he was answered
by Mr. Thomas Eschaus 6 in such a way that I rose at once and
left, since I saw Satan presiding at this meeting.. I even hear that
the youths have been allowed to carry arms, contrary to the
Sovereigns order . 7 It would be better if only a small number of
students studied here than that we be exposed to such riots. All
sensible people condemn this nonsense. In the sermon tomorrow
I shall also try to curb this if I can, with God s grace. The

1 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

2 Peter Burchard, a professor of medicine, was then president of the Uni-
versity. Soon after this incident he accepted a call to Ingolstadt and became
a bitter opponent of Luther.

8 The rivalry between the students and members of the local painters’ guild
led to violent clashes between the two groups in February of 1520 and again
on July 13. For details, see Friedensburg, G.U.W., pp. 150 ff.; S-J 1, 291.

4 “They” could refer to the students or to the members of the senate.

5 Peter Lupin, or Wolf, a Doctor of Theology since 1508, was a professor
of philosophy and theology, as well as treasurer of the University of Witten-
berg at one time. Luther dedicated his Commentary on Galatians (1519; see
p. 113, n. 11) to him and to Karlstadt (see p. 79, n. 12). Although Lupin
was a Thomist, he was deeply interested in Luther’s thoughts and became
a faithful friend of the Reformer. Lupin died in 1521; see p. 230.
•Thomas Eschaus, or Eschhausen, Doctor of Medicine since 1518 and a
professor of medicine and pharmacology (who had also studied some Canon
Law and was once registrar), apparently wanted to support his fellow
faculty member who was then the president; see note 2. Luther’s anger with
Eschaus was of short duration. Perhaps as early as 1520, Luther made him
his personal physician. Eschaus died in 1535. See WA, Br 2, 143, n. 5.

7 Following a riot in February Elector Frederick issued orders that neither
students nor guild members were to carry arms; on the riot in February, see
WA, Br 2, 51, n. 10.

168

TO WENCESLAS LINK, AUGUST 19, 1520

orders the Sovereign just issued were not kept at all The old
men were wilder than the young. I know that Satan has his hand
in this. Since he cannot in anyway harm the word of God which
is returning to us, he seeks at least to bring it into disgrace by
this maneuver. We must oppose this, however, with every pos-
sible effort, so that he does not win with these bloodthirsty people. 8

I believe, by the way, that you have received all the letters
that I sent, together with the one from Sylvester von Schaumberg;*
please return them so that friends may read them too.

Farewell and pray for me.

July 14, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

To Wenceslas Link 1
Wittenberg, August 19, 1520

In this letter Luther is defending the harsh tone of his polemical
writings, especially of his To the Christian Nobility of the German
Nation, which he had recently published.

Wenceslas Link (1483-1547), an Augustinian, entered Witten-
berg University in 1503 and was graduated from there as a
Doctor of Theology in 1511. He was dean of the Theological
Faculty when Luther was graduated as a Doctor in 1512, and
became prior of the Wittenberg monastery in 1512 or 1513. In
1516 he left Wittenberg for Munich (see p. 31), and soon after-
ward he became a preacher in Niirnberg. In 1520 he was elected

8 Law and order in Wittenberg were not restored until the Electoral Saxon
marshal Hans von Dolzig occupied the town with a company of soldiers and
pressured the University into curbing the students.

9 In June of 1520, Sylvester von Schaumberg, a noble of Franconia, had
offered military protection to Luther; see WA, Br 2, No. 298; S-/ 1, 330 f.
Like von Sickingen (see pp. 244 f.) and von Hutten (see p. 163, n. 1), he too
was a member of the German nationalistic opposition to Rome and saw in
Luther his champion. The other letter could not be identified.

1 The addressee is missing in the manuscript copy of this letter but appears
in the earliest printed editions.

169

LETTERS

vicar general, succeeding John von Staupitz (see p. 64, n. 1).
Under his leadership the general convention of the Saxon (or
German) Congregation of Reformed Augustinians (see p. 6, n.
3), which was held in Wittenberg in February, 1522, allowed all
monks to leave the Order if they wished. In 1523 Link resigned
from his office and became a pastor in Altenburg. From 1525 to
the end of his life he was a pastor in Niimberg. Link was one
of Luthers oldest friends. He met Luther in the Wittenberg
monastery in 1508, and, incidentally, he accompanied him from
Niimberg to Augsburg in the fall of 1518, after presenting him
with a new cowl; see WA, TR 5, No. 5349.

Text in iMtin: WA, Br 2, 168.

Jesus

Greetings. I do not try to seek praise and fame, my Father, with
my writings and little books. Almost all condemn my stinging
tone. Yet I share your opinion that perhaps in this way God
reveals the figments of mans imagination. For I realize that those
things which in our age are treated quietly will soon be forgotten,
and nobody will care about them. But the womb of Rebecca also
[had] to bear children who were contentious and kicked each
other . 2 The present age passes an unfavorable judgment; the
judgment of future generations will be better. Even Paul calls
his enemies now “dogs,” now “mutilation,” now “babblers,” “false
workmen,” “servants of Satan,” and names of that kind and strikes
the face of the whitewashed wall . 3 Who does not see that the
prophets attack [the sin of the people] with the greatest violence?
But we have become accustomed to these things, and therefore
they no longer disturb us.

The Reverend Father Vicar 4 wrote to me yesterday from
Erfurt and asked me not to publish the little book on the reform

2 Gen 25*22.

3 Phil. 3:2; Titus 1:10; II Cor. 11:13, 15; Acts 23:3.

4 The manuscript copy is illegible at this point; but apparently the word
rendered as “vicar” begins with “L.” This suggests that Luther is referring
to the district vicar John Lang (see p. 61, n. 6). Lang's letter (in which he
must have asked or ordered Luther not to publish the little book mentioned
in note 5) is not extant; see WA, Br 2, 167, 168, n. 5.

170

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 23, 1520

of the state of Christendom. 5 I do not know on what point 6
[this little book] should have been censured. But his letter came
too late; the little book was already published. Try to pacify
him when you meet him. 7 Who knows whether the Spirit him-
self is not driving me on with his force, since it is certain that
I am not carried away by zeal for fame, money, or pleasure. 8
I say nothing of vengeance— may the Lord forgive here. This
also is not undertaken by me to stir up a revolt, but to affirm
the freedom for a General Council [to meet and decide].

Farewell in the Lord.

August 19, 1520 Yours,

Friar Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, August 23, 1520

Luther is complaining that he did not receive a satisfactory answer
for the widow, Walpurga Landmann ; see p. 142, n. 4. He reports
on a letter to Cardinal Carvajal and encloses a draft of his Protest
and Offer and some other material.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 169-170.

5 An den Christlichen Adel deutscher Nation , von des Christlichen Standes
Besserung (To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, Concerning the
Reform of the Christian Estate) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, August, 1520).
WA 6, 404 ff.; PE 2, 61 ff.

6 Other possibilities of translating and interpreting this passage would be:

. . know why (on what pretense) this little book should have been . .
or, “. . . know on what authority this little book. . . .”

7 Link was to meet Lang at a forthcoming chapter meeting of the Au-
gustinians in Eisleben; see WA, Br 2, 101, n. 2. The last triennial chapter
meeting had taken place in April, 1518; see p. 60. The next one was to have
taken place in April, 1521. The vicar general von Staupitz, however, called
it for the end of August, 1520, in Eisleben. Von Staupitz, weary of the
development of the Reformation and its impact on the Augustinians, resigned
at this meeting. Link was elected his successor.

8 For similar statements, see pp. 103, 196.

171

LETTERS

To that friendly man, Mr. George Spalatin, a servant of
Christ, my friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. First of all, my Spalatin, no answer has been given
to the widow Landmann , 1 except (as I hear) harsh reproaches;
consequently that supplication accomplished nothing. If you can,
please write what is to be done now.

I have taken care of your letter and forwarded it to Niimberg . 2

Additions will be made to the little book 3 in the second
edition, which Lotther is preparing; they will also expand it.
Please note that I am enclosing the Elogion 4 and the letter[s ] 5
for correction.

The subject of the letter to the Cardinal of the Holy Cross
is as follows: 6 since he is unusually famous in the world, I wanted
to ask him to be the arbiter in the case and settle it by every
means possible . 7 I would also offer every condition necessary
for peace, except recanting, suffering the stigma of a heretic, or
being deprived of the liberty of teaching the Word. I am not
afraid of censures and force, however, since in the midst of
Germany I can now be safe. At the same time they should be
careful having crushed one not to arouse many others. With

1 See p. 142, n. 4.

2 This letter could not be identified.

3 The second edition of To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (see
p. 171, n. 5), released sometime in October or November, 1520. Originally
Lotther printed four thousand copies; they must have sold rapidly, because
now, on August 23, Luther is already considering a second edition.

4 Elogion. This is apparently Luthers draft of his Protest and Offer to the
Emperor; see W A 6, 476 ff. Here the Reformer points out that he has taught
nothing but the Word of God, that he is a faithful son of the church and
willing to be better instructed. See also p. 174, nn. 5, 6.

3 Literae, the Latin word used by Luther, can mean both letter and letters.
We are certain that Luther enclosed a draft of his letter to Emperor Charles
V (see p. 175); for another possible enclosure, see p. 174, n. 6.

6 This is either a suggestion for a letter of Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.)
or a report on a letter planned by Luther. Bernardino Carvajal, bishop of
Cartagena and Ostia, cardinal and titular priest of the Church of the Holy
Cross in Rome since 1495, was known for his opposition to Pope Julius II
( during the Council of Pisa; see p. 104, n. 5 ) and his support of the enemies
of Reuchlin (see p. 9).

7 Literally: “. . . that he would make himself, with all possible zeal, the
agent for the settling of the case. ...” On this plan, see pp. 98 f.

172

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 24, 1520

Gods help I shall be a match for my enemies both in talent and
knowledge.

Farewell and pray for me.

Wittenberg, August 23, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

I commend Master Francis Gunther to you . 8 9 Take care to give
this letter to the Sovereign.®

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, August 24, 1520

Luther recommends Francis Gunther, and once more he asks
Spalatin to polish the draft of his appeal to the Emperor and the
other material.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 170-171.

To my dearest friend in Christ, Mr. George Spalatin at
Lochau , 1 a servant of Christ

8 Francis Gunther of Nordhausen was graduated as Bachelor of Arts from the
University of Erfurt in 1512 and as Master of Arts from the University of
Wittenberg in 1516. While teaching on Wittenberg's Liberal Arts Faculty he
studied theology and became one of Luther's students. In 1517 he was
graduated as Bachelor in Biblical Studies (see LW 31, 6) and in October,
1521, as Licentiate of Theology (see p. 264, n. 3). In 1519 he was called
as a preacher to Jiiterbog, where he got involved in a controversy with the
Franciscans. Due to his outspoken support of Luther he had to leave
Jiiterbog and, recommended by Luther (see WA, Br 2, 166; S-J 1, 345),
was appointed to the parish in Lochau, which was the Electoral Saxon resi-
dence (see above). He died in Lochau in 1528. See also ARG 8 (1911), 5 f.

9 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f. The letter Spalatin was to turn over to
the Elector could be either this letter itself (because of the references to the
widow Walpurga Landmann and the letter to Cardinal Carvajal) or the
drafts mentioned in notes 4 and 5.

1 Lochau was at that time the seat of the Electoral Saxon government

173

LETTERS

Jesus

Greetings. I am sending Master Francis Giinther 2 to you, my
Spalatin, and he is ready to do what you write. 3 You, however,
must provide him with more detailed instructions and information;
as you know, he is unfamiliar with life at court. Yet he is eager
to learn, as far as I know his disposition.

I believe that my letter, 4 together with the Elogion 5 and
the other [letter(s)], 6 has reached you. Please take pains to
polish everything with a sharp file. When I wrote these things

1 was pressured by I don't know what burdens of the soul. I
shall also show them to other friends before they are given to
the public.

Farewell.

August 24, 1520 Martin Luther

Augustinian

2 Francis Gunther; see p. 173, n. 8.

8 Apparently this refers to the duties Gunther was to take over.

4 WA, Br 2, No. 330, Introduction, identifies this (first) letter as Luther's letter
to Spalatin, dated August 23 (see pp. 171 ff. ).

5 Elogion; see p. 172, n. 4. Spalatin did polish Luther's draft of the Offer
and Protest and return it. It was printed by J. Griinenberg in the last days
of August and is reproduced in WA 6, 480 f. (see edition A on p. 478). On
August 31 Luther sent a copy of this printed edition to Spalatin (see WA,
Br 2, 179; S-J 1, 349), along with the final draft of his personal letter to
the Emperor (see p. 175). The Offer and Protest was later nailed to the
doors of various churches throughout Germany and thus made known to the
public; see WA, Br 2, 208; S-J 1, 384 f. In January, 1521, Luther sent a
copy of this edition to Elector Frederick, who was already in Worms; see
p. 195. The Elector had it translated into Latin and printed along with
Luther's letter to the Emperor (see d. 175), which the Elector must have
received from Spalatin. Then the Elector turned both documents over to
Emperor Charles V who, however, did not read them but tore them up. For
this reconstruction of the events, see WA, Br 2, 174 f.; WA 6, 474 ff.
e WA, Br 2, No. 330, Introduction, says this “other [letter]'' is the draft of
Luther's letter to the Emperor (see p. 175), sent to Spalatin on August 23;
see p. 172. According to the WA, Br editor, the circumstances were prob-
ably as follows: on August 23 Luther sent Spalatin the drafts of his Offer
ana Protest and of his letter to the Emperor; see p. 172. On August 24 he
expressed his hope that Spalatin had received his August 23 letter (the first
letter mentioned by Luther, see note 4), in which he had included the drafts
of the Offer and Protest and of the letter to the Emperor (the “other [letter]"
mentioned by Luther); see above. This interpretation seems to come to
mind first, but it need not be the only one suggested by the text. Luther
could have enclosed “letters" on August 23 (see p. 172) since die Latin
word literae can connote either the singular or plural. This would raise the
question of what “other [letter ( s)]." A study of the various documents ex-

174

TO EMPEROR CHARLES V, AUGUST 30, 1520

To Emperor Charles V
Wittenberg, August 30, 1520

This letter is an official communication to Charles V. Luther
gives a short report on the development of his case and calls
upon the Emperor for protection and for a fair hearing to decide
whether his position or his enemies ’ is correct. He also states
his willingness to forego any Imperial protection if found guilty
of doctrinal errors.

Charles V (1500-1558) was the grandson of Emperor Maxi-
milian I and heir to the territories of the Hapshurg dynasty.

changed between Luther and Spalatin brings forth a somewhat different
picture of the events than the WA, Br editor developed. On August 31
Luther sent Spalatin the printed edition of his Offer and Protest (see note
5), the final draft of his letter to the Emperor (see pp. 175 £F.), and the final
draft of a letter no longer extant to the Imperial knight Francis von Sickingen
(see WA, Br 2, 208; S-J 1, 384). The content of this letter is not known, but
one may assume that Luther tried to recommend his case to the Knight and
perhaps asked him for moral support. The suggestion made by Enders {Brief-
wechsel 2, 470, n. 1 ) that Luther asked von Sickingen to turn the letter ( see
pp. 175 ff. ) and the Offer and Protest over to the Emperor seems doubtful (see
WA, Br 2, 174), although it is a possibility which should not be as totally
disregarded as the WA, Br editor did (see WA, Br 2, 174). In any case the
von Sickingen letter must be viewed against the background of Luther s ap-
peal to the Emperor. It is very possible that Luther also included a draft of
this von Sickingen letter as early as August 23, when he sent Spalatin the
drafts of his Offer and Protest and his letter to the Emperor; on p. 172 one
would, therefore, have to read “letters” (as is suggested), which is grammati-
cally possible. Spalatin was to polish the three documents and return them to
Luther for the final copying of the two letters and the typesetting of the
Offer and Protest . The “other [letter(s)]” mentioned by Luther on August
24 (see p. 174) would then refer to both the von Sickingen letter and the
one to the Emperor, while the first letter Luther mentioned would be the
August 23 letter to Spalatin (see pp. 171 ff.). This differs somewhat from the
commentary in WA, Br 2, No. 330, and in WA 6, 474, where it is assumed
that Luther did not need Spalatin’s polishing hand for his letter to von
Sickingen, but only for the letter to the Emperor; consequently the “other
[letter]” could only be the one to the Emperor. However, why should
Luther not have sent the drafts of all three documents connected with this
important step (namely, the appeal to the Imperial government) to Spalatin
for correction? On June 29 he had already mentioned to Spalatin that he
would write to von Sickingen “tomorrow” (see WA, Br 2, 131). It is
hardly believable that he did not keep Spalatin informed of the status of the
work on this letter, and that he did not also take advantage of Spalatin’s
able aid for this important document.

175

LETTERS

Educated in the Spanish Netherlands (which he inherited from
his father , Philip the Fair of Austria-Bur gundy, and his mother,
Joanna the Mad of Aragon-Castile), he always remained a stranger
to German life and thought. In 1516/17 he became Charles I,
king of Spain. When his grandfather Maximilian died in 1519
(see p. 123, n. 3; p. 129, n. 6; pp. 96 f.), he inherited the German
portions of the Hapsburg territories and was elected Roman king
(a position which made him de facto emperor ), although Pope
Leo X and King Francis I of France tried to prevent this. The
accumulation of such territorial power and political strength in
the hands of one person involved the German Empire in a bitter,
century-long struggle with France, in which the Papal See re-
peatedly shifted its support on the basis of political opportunism.
The beginning of the rule of Charles V coincided with the rather
rapid development of the Reformation and the dragging out of
Luthers trial for heresy. In this situation Luther appealed to the
young Emperor for help. In November, 1520, Elector Frederick
(see pp. 49 f.) urged Charles to take the case of Luther into
his hands; see S-J 1, 397 ff. The Emperors situation was infinitely
more complicated than it might seem at first glance. To avoid
interference from secular governments, the papal court finally, on
June 15, 1520, issued the bull Exsurge, Domine (Arise, O Lord),
which condemned Luthers teachings as heresy and threatened
him with excommunication unless he recanted; see Denzinger,
Nos. 741 ff. According to the close relationship which then existed
between church and state, such excommunication would neces-
sarily be accompanied by a ban under which Luther would be
considered an outlaw. In spite of the pressure which the papal
legate, Jerome Aleander (see O.D.C.C., p. 32), put on the Emperor
not to interfere in Luther’s trial and to turn Luther over to the
authorities of the church (see Kidd, pp. 80 ff.; see also Aleandef’s
letters written from Worms, a selection of which may be found
in S-J 1), the Emperor yielded to the urging of Elector Frederick
and summoned Luther to appear before the diet scheduled to
be in session in Worms in the spring of 1521; see S-J 1, Nos. 342,
361, 412 f. See also R. Tyler, The Emperor Charles V (London:
Allen, 1956); Bainton, pp. 151 ff.; Fife, pp. 507 ff., 587 ff.;
Schwiebert, pp. 466 ff.

176

TO EMPEROR CHARLES V, AUGUST 30, 1520

This letter is available in two versions: one is a sixteenth
century manuscript kept in the British Museum in London, on
which, it seems, all later editions are based. The other is a printed
version published by J. Griinenberg in Wittenberg late in 1520.
Both versions are identical in content ; however they have im-
portant stylistic variations. To the best of our knowledge the
manuscript is an incorrectly dated copy of the draft Luther sent
to Spalatin for correction (see pp. 172, 174); see WA, Br 2,
175. It would therefore be closer to Luthers original thought
than the printed copy; the translation is based on it.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 175-178, col. 1.

Jesus

Grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ

Everyone will be astonished, and rightly so, that I dare to
address a letter to Your Most Serene Imperial Majesty, excellent
Emperor and Caesar Charles. For what can be more disrespectful
than that the king of kings and lord of lords be addressed by
an absolutely unworthy and lowly man? However he will be less
astonished who has contemplated the magnitude of this case and
realized that it concerns evangelical truth. The truth of the
gospel is worthy of approaching even the throne of the heavenly
Majesty; therefore it should not seem unworthy of calling upon
an earthly sovereign. In addition to this, as earthly sovereigns
are images of the heavenly Sovereign, they ought to imitate him,
and while sitting in high places, they should still have regard
for the lowly things on earth, raise the helpless from the ground,
and lift up the poor from the dung heap . 1 Therefore I come,
helpless and poor; as the most worthless of men, I am prostrate
before the feet of Your Most Serene Majesty, yet I bring forward
a most worthy cause.

I have published certain little books by which I have aroused
for myself the envy and indignation of many and important men,
although I should have been safe for two reasons.

First, I came out into the public eye against my will. What-

1 See Ps. 113:5 ff.

177

LETTERS

ever I have written, I have written after being provoked by the
violence and plots of others. I desired nothing more ardently
than that I could stay hidden in my comer . 2 *

Second, I strove for nothing other than spreading the truth
of the gospel against superstitious opinions stemming from human
tradition. My own conscience as well as the judgment of excellent
men bear witness to this.

For this, then, I am now for the third year enduring limit-
less provocations, insults, perils, and whatever evil the wicked
can devise. In the meantime I vainly offer silence , 8 I vainly
suggest conditions for peace , 4 I vainly request to be informed of
teachings more correct than mine . 5 There is only one thing pre-
pared for me: to be annihilated, together with the whole gospel.

I have vainly tried everything. Therefore it has finally
seemed wise to appeal to [Your] Imperial Majesty, according to
the example of St. Athanasius , 6 in case the Lord deigns to help
his cause through [Your Imperial Majesty]. Humbly and on my
knees, therefore, I beseech Your Most Serene Majesty, Charles,
foremost of kings on earth, to deign to take under the shadow
of your wings not me but this very cause of truth, since it is
only by this truth that authority is given you to carry the sword
for the punishment of the evil and for the praise of the good . 7
[I beseech the shield of your protection] neither farther nor longer
than I need to defend this case and either have won it or lost
it. I do not want to be protected if I am found ungodly or a
heretic. I ask for only one thing, that neither truth nor falsehood

2 Luther made similar statements as far back as 1517/18, in the early stages
of his case; see pp. 69, 75, 103; p. 119, and note 7 there.

8 See pp. 97 f.

4 See pp. 88, 97 ff., 181, 195 ff., 246; p. 74, n. 7; p. 152, n. 5.

8 See p. 74, n. 7.

8 Luther is thinking of the role the Emperor Constantine (see O.D.C.C., pp.
334 f.) assumed shortly before and during the Council of Nicaea (see
O.D.C.C., pp. 951 f.). Called upon by Arians and by the orthodox party,
whose theological leader was the Alexandrian deacon Athanasius ( see
O.D.C.C., pp. 334 f. ), the Emperor summoned the council and presided over
its opening session. The decisions of the council, which were finally passed
with the Emperor’s approval, condemned Arius and his followers. In the
bitter controversies which followed that council, Athanasius sought the help
of the Imperial government on various occasions, though not always success-
fully. See Patrohgu, pp. 309 ff.

7 Rom. 13:1 ff.

178

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, OCTOBER 12, 1520

be condemned without being heard and defeated. Your Most
Serene Majesty owes this to Christ, who has power over so many
kingdoms. He demands in his grace that Your Most Serene
Majesty protect this truth. [To comply with this demand] would
be the greatest mark of distinction for your Empire. It will be
the remembered glory of your age if Your Most Sacred Majesty
will not allow the unjust to crush and swallow him who is more
just, [and will not allow] men, when . . . 8 and affliction 9
become increasingly powerful, to resemble the fish of the sea
and the reptiles who have no leader, as the prophet says . 10

Thus I commend myself to Your Most Sacred Majesty in
trust and hope. May our Lord Jesus preserve Your Majesty to
us and exalt Your Majesty to the eternal glory of his gospel. Amen.

Written at Wittenberg, August 30, the year of our Lord 1520
Your Most Serene Imperial and
Royal Majesty’s dedicated [though]
insignificant subject , 11
Friar Martin Luther
Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Lichtenberg, October 12, 1 1520

At their first meeting Luther and Charles von Miltitz (see p . 98)
discussed the possibility of Luther apologizing to the Pope , but

8 The manuscript is illegible at this point; the printed edition reads iudicium,
which can mean judgment, judicial investigation, or trial.

9 Luther wrote contradictio, i.e., reply, answer, counterargument; a contradictor
is an opponent. If one combines this with iudicium, the reading supplied by
the printed edition for the illegible word of the manuscript, then Luther
could have meant, “. . . when trial and affliction [or opposition] become
stronger . . .”; or, “. . . when judicial investigation and counterargument
become more powerful.”

10 Hab. 1:14.

11 Luther wrote clientulus, 'little client,” suggesting that he entrusted him-
self and his case to the Emperor, as a client entrusts his case to a lawyer.

1 Missing in the autograph; on the dating, see WA, Br 2, 193 f. On October
10, or shortly before that date, the bull Exsurge , Domine (see p. 170)

179

LETTERS

they abandoned this idea; see p. 100 . Completely underesti-
mating the issues involved, von Miltitz hoped that a personal
apology on Luthers part could settle the affair . Von Miltitz con-
tinued to think about this possibility and at one of his later
meetings with Luther he took it up again . This letter is Luthers
report on this meeting, which took place October 12 in the house
of the Hospital Brothers of St. Anthony in Lichtenberg (or Lichten -
burg), north of Torgau, near Prettin .

See LW 31, 329 f. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f .

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 197.

To the devout and learned man, Mr. George Spalatin, Saxon
court chaplain, my friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin, Sir Charles Miltitz and I have met at
Lichtenberg. We agreed— and as I understand from him, this
has great possibilities— that I should publish a letter in German
and in Latin, addressed to the Pope, as a preface to some brief
writing . 2 In this letter I am to relate my whole story and show

arrived in Wittenberg; see WA, Br 2, 194 f. John Eck (see p. 80, n. 13)
had sent it to the University and asked that the University put it into effect.
The senate refused to do this without having first received the advice and
orders of the Electoral court. The bull was never handed over to Luther
directly. This papal declaration condemned as heretical forty-one proposi-
tions attributed to Luther and threatened him with excommunication unless
he recanted within sixty days. For the text, see Denzinger, Nos. 741 ff. The
excommunication was proclaimed on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet
Romanum pontificem (It Is Right that the Roman Pontiff).

2 Luther fulfilled this promise with his Open Letter to Pope Leo X. The
original of this letter, composed by Luther immediately after his return from
Lichtenberg, was in Latin. Luther translated it at once into German and
had it printed at the same time as the German version of his (then ap-
parently completed but as yet unpublished) Freedom of a Christian. The
Latin text of this letter, published shortly after the German text, is the
preface to Luther's Latin version of The Freedom of a Christian (of which
the German version is only an extract): Ein S endbrief an den Papst Leo X
(An Open Letter to Pope Leo X) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg, the begin-
ning of November, 1520). WA 7, 3 ff.: Von der Freiheit eines Christenmen-
schen (On the Freedom of a Christian) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg,
beginning of November, 1520). WA 7, 20 ff. This version was dedicated
to Hermann Muhlpfordt, mayor of Zwickau; LW 31, 333. Epistola
Lutheriana ad Leonem Decimum . . . Tractatus de libertate Christiana
( Luther 9 s Letter to Leo X . . . Treatise on Christian Freedom) (Wittenberg:

180

TO DUKE JOHN FREDERICK, OCTOBER SO, 1520

that I never wanted to attack the Pope personally, and throw
the whole blame on Eck. 8

As all this is true, I can easily do it, and I will offer, as
humbly as I can, to keep silent, provided that others keep silent
too, so that I may not seem to omit anything in my power to
make peace. This is my desire, and, as you know, I have always
been ready to do it. I shall prepare this, therefore, at the earliest
possible moment. If it turns out the way we hope, it is well; if it
turns out differently, it will also be well, because this is then
the will of the Lord.

Farewell.

Lichtenberg, [in the house of the] Antonians , 4 1520

Martin Luther

To Duke John Frederick 1
Wittenberg, October 30, 1520

Luther thanks the Duke for supporting his case and tells of his
determination to continue his public activities in spite of the
bull Exsurge , Domine (see p . 179, n. 1).

Duke John Frederick (1503-1554) was the son of Duke John,
the brother and successor (1525-1532) of Elector Frederick (see
pp. 49 f.). Educated by George Spalatin (see pp. 8 f.), he was
deeply attracted by Luther and by the Reformers thought
and work . In 1532 he became Elector of Saxony ; he was the
last member of the Ernestine family to hold this office . During
the tragic battle between the Protestant Smalcald League and
the Imperial army at Miihlberg on April 24, 1547, he was cap -

J. Griinenberg, second half of November, 1520). WA 7, 42 ff.; LW 31,
334 ff.

8 John Eck; see p. 80, n. 13. Occasionally Luther put the blame for the
indulgence controversy on Tetzel. See pp. 46, 339 f.

4 See p. 327, n. 10.

1 Missing in the autograph; the addressee, however, can be supplied from an
old manuscript copy of this letter; see WA, Br 2, No. 347, Introduction.

181

LETTERS

tured by the Emperor and sentenced to death for rebellion and
high treason. Later his death sentence was commuted to life
imprisonment and the forfeiture of his Electoral dignity. Shortly
afterward, however, his imprisonment was ended. In comparison
with the shrewdness of Elector Frederick, John Frederick's po-
litical abilities were limited, especially in dealing with the
Emperor. Yet his character was strong; this was especially evi-
dent in the days of his imprisonment. Throughout his entire life
he had been convinced of the correctness of the Reformation;
as a result he was not willing to yield a single point to the
political and religious demands of the Roman Imperial party,
and, although defeated by the Emperor, he refused to acknowl-
edge any decisions concerning religious issues which might be
reached by any council in which the Reformation party was not
granted equal representation. From his earliest youth he had
dedicated his whole energy to the development of the Reforma-
tion; together with his father he instituted the visitations of
the congregations in Saxony and Thuringia. Especially after
1530 he tried to strengthen the political position of the Protestant
Estates against the Emperor and his policy of supporting the
Roman church.

Text in German: WA, Br 2, 205-206.

Jesus

Serene, Noble Sovereign, Gracious Lord: Before all else, my
humble prayer and all my services are always at Your Graces
disposal. Gracious Lord, I have received Your Grace's letter, and
read it with great joy . 2 From it I have learned of Your Graces
special good will and favor toward me, unworthy though I be,
and also of your great steadfastness and enthusiasm for the holy
and divine truth. Although I am too lowly to have brought this
about in Your Grace even in a small way, yet at all times I want
to be diligent in thanking and praising God for it, according
to my humble ability; may he strengthen and preserve Your

2 Correspondence between Duke John Frederick and Elector Frederick re-
garding the bull; see p. 179, n. 1; for details, see WA, Br 2, No. 347,
Introduction.

182

TO DUKE JOHN FREDERICK, OCTOBER 30, 1520

Grace’s heart and mind in such a Christian attitude. Your Grace’s
constant concern in this cause, so as to write so assiduously to
my Most Gracious Lord, Duke Frederick, elector, etc., stirs
up great hope in me that God will help his gospel through Your
Grace.

As the bull 3 has in no way frightened me, I intend to preach,
lecture, and write in spite of it. I suspect, however, that the
people of Leipzig, 4 if they could, would drive me out of Witten-
berg, with the help of Duke George and the Bishop of Merseburg, 5
who have developed toward me a hatred defying description. But
I have commended all this to the divine will. I well realize that
they try to destroy not me but rather Your Grace’s small uni-
versity at Wittenberg. They have played with this thought for
some time, and now they rejoice that they have found a “just”
reason. 6 May they do whatever God has destined them to do. I
shall await the next throw of the dice.

With this, I want humbly to commend myself— but before
all else, the cause of the Christian truth— to Your Grace. May
God bless, strengthen, and govern you for us, according to his
divine will. To him be praise and honor. Amen.

Wittenberg , October 30, 1520

Your Grace’s dedicated priest,

D. Martin Luther
Augustinian

3 On the bull, see p. 176; p. 179, n. 1.

4 On the hostilities between the University of Wittenberg and the University of
Leipzig, see p. 63, n. 24.

5 On Duke George, Luther’s bitter opponent since the Leipzig Disputation,
see p. 110, n. 20; p. 149, n. 6. Adolf of Anhalt, bishop of Merseburg from
1514 to 1526 ( a brother of William of Anhalt, the begging prince who made
such a strong impression on young Martin during his school days in Magde-
burg; see p. 146; W A 38, 105), was responsible for Alveld’s attacks on
Luther; see p. 164, n. 9.

6 Namely, the bull

183

LETTERS

To Lazarus Spengler
Wittenberg, November 17, 1520

Lazarus Spengler was the city clerk of Niimberg , that is , the
legally trained counselor and liaison man between council and
mayor; in this position he was able to influence events in the
city to a great extent . He became one of the most prominent
figures of the Reformation movement in Niimberg and the
Brandenburg-Ansbach-Franconia territory. Disturbed by rumors
of a possible split in the Wittenberg Faculty, as well as between
Luther and Erasmus, he turned to Luther for information. Luther
is assuring him that everything is fine. Luther also comments
on a second edition of his appeal to a General Council (see p .
90, n. 5) and on the bull Exsurge, Domine (see p. 179 , n. 1).
Text in German: WA, Br 2, 217-218.

To the prudent and wise Lazarus Spengler, city clerk of
the City of Niimberg, etc., my special lord and friend

Jesus

My service, etc., [is always available to you]

Honorable and wise sir, my dear lord and friend: I have read
your letter 1 with special joy and seen your great courage in the
matter of Christian truth. God strengthen you and all of us with
his grace. I also appreciate very much the great and kind concern
that you show in behalf of me and all the people of Wittenberg.
You certainly should believe, however, that Doctor Karlstadt 2
and Philip 3 agree entirely. Occasionally, of course, in the Uni-
versity one person says something differently than another; this
fact, perhaps, gave rise to this rumor. But Master Philip is, by
God's grace, so gifted that he will not have any controversy with
Karlstadt. Likewise, it never occurred to me to bear a grudge

1 This letter is not extant.

2 Andrew Karlstadt; see p. 79, n. 12.

8 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

184

TO LAZARUS SPENGLER, NOVEMBER 17, 1520

against Erasmus 4 or to dislike him. It is all right with me that
he does not want me to make any references to him. I also
answered him and promised not to mention him in this way any
more, nor any other good friends, since it is dangerous for diem. 6
People imagine and write many such things about me; there-
fore don’t be disturbed by their gossip. God willing, Erasmus
and I will of course remain one. It is true, however, that once
in a while I debate privately with Philip on how close Erasmus
is to the [right] way or how far he is from it. He and everyone
else may also do that about me with impunity and in friendship.
I will not attack anyone first. It is sufficient for me to defend
myself if attacked.

I have now arranged for a second printing of my Appeal
in Latin and in German, 6 although I thought there was no real
need for it, since the bull 7 was so open and shameless in con-
demning me in a totally anti-Christian manner. We do not know
whether the bishops will put the bull into effect. 8 I do not
regard myself as having legally received the bull. 9

With this I commend myself to you before God. Amen.
Wittenberg, November 17, 1520

D. Martin Luther
Augustinian

4 Erasmus of Rotterdam; see pp. 116 f.; p. 150, n. 10.

6 In his reply to the “asses of Louvain and Cologne” (see p. 155), published
in March of 1520, Luther charged both universities with arrogance and
stupidity, and demonstrated that in the past they occasionally had made
fools of themselves in condemning certain scholars. Luther referred to indi-
vidual cases and concluded that he did not want to discuss the universities'
conduct toward John Ruchrath of Wesel (see O.D.C.C., p. 741), Faber
Stapulensis (see p. 26, n. 15), and Erasmus. See WA 6, 184. In a letter
dated August 1, 1520, Erasmus (although he was impressed with the coinage
shown by Luther in this reply; see Allen 4, 1113; see also Allen 9, 2445)
complained to Luther that he did not want to be involved in the Reformer’s
business, since he had enough trouble of his own. See WA, Br 2, 157.
Luther's answer is not extant.

6 The second edition of Luther’s appeal to a General Council, which he
had issued for the first time in November, 1518. See p. 90; WA 7, 75 f.
It was supposed to be a powerful countermeasure to the bull ( see p. 179, n. 1 ) .

7 On the bull, see p. 176; p. 179, n. 1.

8 Certain bishops, like the one at Bamberg, refused or for various reasons
hesitated to publish and execute the bull in their dioceses; see WA, Br 2,
212, n. 19.

9 The bull was never delivered to Luther personally but only to the Uni-
versity. Right after Luther saw the bull he decided to act as if it had not

185

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, December 10, 1520

Luther reports on the burning of certain papal books . He also
comments on a request for a leave of absence made by the
preacher of EUenburg.

See LW SI, 381 ff .; Schwiebert, pp. 486 ff. On George
Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 234.

To the learned and devout man, George Spalatin, court
chaplain and my friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. On December 10, 1520, at nine o’clock in the morning,
all the following papal books were burned in Wittenberg at the
eastern gate near the Church of the Holy Cross: the Decretum,
the Decretals, the [Liber] Sextus, the Clementines, the Extra-
vagantes, 1 and the most recent bull of Leo X; 2 likewise the Summa

been legally turned over to him, or as if the bull had been forged by Eck.
See WA, Br 2, No. 341, Introduction; S-J 1, 365 ff.

1 Luther is referring to parts of the Canon Law. They are collections of
decretals, or official proclamations of the Papal See, in which issues of
faith and morals or of the administration of the church were decided, or
in which suggestions were made for such decisions, (a) Gratian’s Decretum
of approximately 1150 was the first major collection of decretals, (b) The
Decretals or the Liber extra was a collection issued by Pope Gregory IX
in 1234. It contained the decretals which were missing in (a) and those
which were issued between 1150 and 1234. (c) In 1298 Pope Boniface
VIII issued the Liber Sextus; it contained the decretals which were pro-
mulgated between 1234 and 1298. (d) The Clementinae are a collection
of decretals issued mostly by Clement V (pope: 1305-1314), published by
John XXII in 1317. (e) The Extravagantes, published in 1325, are a col-
lection of the decretals of Pope John XXII. (f) The Extravagantes com-
munes are decretals issued between 1281-1484, but not included in other
collections. The Council of Basel (1437) collected (a) to (d) into one
corpus of legal material, to which (e) and (f) were later added. In burning
the Canon Law, Luther rejected the legal and administrative authority of the
Roman See, which had condemned his teachings. See CIC ; O.D.C.C., p. 346.

2 Exsurge, Domine {Arise, O Lord); see p. 176; p. 179, n. 1.

186

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, DECEMBER 10, 1520

Angelica* Eck’s Chiysopassus 4 and other books by this author,
writings of Emser, 5 and certain other books that were added by
different people. This was done so that the incendiary papists
may see that it doesn’t take much to bum books they cannot refute. 6
This is the news here.

Besides this, what you have asked me to do for the preacher
of Eilenburg 7 — look, I am doing right now. For he asks that with
your help I get the Most Illustrious Sovereign 8 to obtain per-
mission from his [the preacher’s] superiors which would allow him
to stay for eight years wherever he wants to, perhaps in con-
centrated study. Since he was moved around at their command
for many years, it seems fair that for once he spend some time in
peace to his own profit. This I have now done and am doing,
asking you to do your part. Now you have what you wanted.
Farewell.

Wittenberg , December 10, 1520 Martin Luther

3 I.e., Summa de casibus conscientiae. This was a handbook to guide priests
in hearing confession; it was issued by Angelo Carletti di Chivasso (1411-
1495). See also WA 6, 553; LW 36, 96, n. 166.

4 A work by John Eck (see p. 80, n. 13) on predestination. For some
information on this work, see WA, Br 2, 235, n. 3.

6 Jerome Emser; see p. 137, n. 19.

6 As a result of the bull, Luther’s books were burned in various cities of
Germany. Luther’s decision to bum the decretals was brought about by
the burning of his books (or at least rumors about it) by the faculty and
students of the University of Leipzig; see WA, Br 2, 235, n. 1. Perhaps
it is significant, as Schwiebert (p. 492) has pointed out, that the burning
of the bull took place exactly at the end of the period of grace allowed
to Luther for recanting.

7 George Kunzelt was then preacher at Eilenburg, a town close to Merse-
burg. Nothing could be found out about him except that Luther wrote to
him on June 15, 1520, concerning some homiletical problem; see WA, Br
2, 124; S-J 1, 331 f.

8 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

187

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, December 29, 1520

Luther expresses his willingness to appear before the Diet of Worms
if summoned , regardless of any danger which might be involved . In
addition he mentions some matters relating to his correspondence
and his rebuttal of the bull (see p. 179 , n. 1).

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 242-243 .

To the learned and devout man, Mr. George Spalatin, Saxon
court chaplain, my friend in the Lord

Greetings. Today I received the copies of the letters from Allstedt
as well as your letter from Kindelbriick . 1 In it you ask me what
I would do if called by Emperor Charles and if [I could do any-
thing] without endangering the gospel and the public welfare,
since you see that [my] enemies do everything to bring this affair
to a head.*

Of course I would by all means come, if called, in so far as
it would be up to me, even if I could not come by my own power
and instead would have to be driven there as a sick man . 3 For it
would not be right to doubt that I am called by the Lord if the
Emperor summons. Further, if they should employ force in this
matter, which is most probable (for they do not want me called

1 Spalatin accompanied Elector Frederick ( see pp. 49 f . ) to Worms for
the diet. The Electoral party stayed in Allstedt (near Weimar) from
December 14 to 20 (see WA, Br 2, 237, n. 1), and was in Kindelbriick
(near Erfurt) on December 21 (see WA, Br 2, No. 365, Introduction). The
“letters” were copies of those letters exchanged between the Elector and
the Emperor concerning Luther’s appearance before the diet; for more
details, see p. 193, n. 9. Spalatin’s letter is not extant; its contents however
can be deduced from Luther’s answer here.

2 Having a close acquaintance with the correspondence between the Elector
and the Imperial government (see note 1 and WA, Br 2, No. 365, Introduction)
and therefore familiar with the strong antipathy toward Luther on the part
of the Emperor’s advisers, Spalatin must have told Luther he was worried
about this antipathy (in the Kindelbriick letter which is not extant, see
note 1).

8 On Luther’s health, see p. 69, n. 20; p. 217, n. 15.

188

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, DECEMBER 29, 1520

there because they want to learn something), then this matter
can only be commended to the Lord. For He who saved the three
men in the furnace of the Babylonian king 4 still lives and rules.
If He does not want to preserve me, then my head is of slight
importance compared with Christ, who was put to death in greatest
ignominy— a stumbling block to all, and the ruin of many. No one's
danger, no ones safety can be considered here. We must rather
take care that we do not expose the gospel (which we have finally
begun to promote) to the derision of the godless and thus give
our enemies a reason for boasting over us because we do not dare
confess what we have taught and are afraid to shed our blood
for it. May the merciful Christ prevent such cowardice on our
part and such boasting on their part. Amen.

Of course it has to come about that the kings and rulers of
the earth would gather and rage with the nations and peoples
against God and his Christ . 5 Yet the Spirit teaches in that same
Psalm that those who trust in God will be blessed; and not only
this, but also that the Lord will laugh and deride those who don’t . 6
Certainly it is not up to us to decide whether my life, or for that
matter my death, will bring greater or less danger for the gospel
and the public welfare. You know that God’s truth is a rock of
stumbling set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel . 7

The only concern remaining to us is to pray to the Lord that
Charles’s reign would not stain its first actions 8 with my blood—
or anyone else’s— to protect ungodliness. I would rather perish (as
I have often said) by the hands of the Romanists 9 alone, than that
he and his administration should be involved in this affair. You
know what misery followed Emperor Sigismund after the death
of Huss . 10 After that nothing prospered for him any more. He

4 Daniel 3.

6 Ps. 2:1-2.

«Ps. 2:4, 10-11.

7 Isa. 8:14; Luke 2:34.

8 Charles was crowned Roman king in Aachen on October 23, 1520, and
shortly afterward the Pope agreed to Charles's assuming the title “chosen
Roman Emperor." The Diet of Worms, scheduled to open on January 27,
1521, was the first diet over which the young king presided.

•On the term “Romanists," see p. 92, n. 10.

10 During the Council of Constance (1414-1418) John Huss (1369P-1415).
the Bohemian Reformer, was executed as a heretic; Emperor Sigismund
(1410-1437) thus violated the safe-conduct he had granted to Huss. The

189

LETTERS

died without a [male] offspring, and later on even Ladislas, the
son of his daughter, died. In one generation his name became
extinct. His wife Barbara even turned out to be a disgrace for
all queens, and many other things happened that you know, I
believe. However, if it has to come to pass that I am not only
handed over to the hierarchy but also to the nations , 11 then the
will of the Lord be done. Amen.

Now you have my judgment and opinion on this matter. You
may expect everything of me except flight and recanting. I do
not want to escape, much less recant; may the Lord Jesus
strengthen me in this. I could do neither without endangering
piety and the salvation of many.

I return the copies of the letters ; 12 in due time I shall send
a letter to the Sovereign, as you have outlined in the draft . 13 Until
now I thought that all my [writings] reached this court at the
earliest moment via other people . 14 So now take whatever is off
the press, for the German edition, based on the Latin, is now being
printed . 15

Hussite War, which started soon after the Council of Constance, devastated
Bohemia and parts of Germany. Sigismund had one daughter who was
married to Emperor Albrecht II (1438-1439) of the Hapsburg family.
Albrecht died during a war against the Turks; his posthumous son Ladislas
died in 1457 without children. Sigismund’s second wife Barbara, countess
of Cilly, became known for her immoral life.

11 1.e., government of nations, as contrasted with the government of the
church.

12 See note 1.

18 This is probably letter No. 70, for which Spalatin must have sent a
rough draft.

14 It is not quite clear what Luther meant here. Perhaps Spalatin complained
in his lost letter (see note 1) that he had not received all the printed sheets
of the Assertio (see note 15), of which he had seen only the first in late
November or early December (see WA, Br 2, 230, n. 4). This might
explain why Luther is including whatever was thus far published of the
German and Latin texts of the Assertio.

18 Soon after Luther had read the bull (see p. 179, n. 1), and having been
urged by Elector Frederick to do so, he replied to it with the Assertio
omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per huttam Leonls X novissiman damnatorum
( Assertion of All the Articles of M. Luther which were Condemned by the
Latest Butt of Leo X) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, January, 1521). WA 7,
94 ff. In order to make his position known to the lay people Luther
reworked this little book and treated the same issue in German as well:
Grand and XJrsach alter Artikel, so durch die rdmische Butte unrechtlich
verdammt worden sind ( Defense and Explanation of AU the Articles . . .)
(Wittenberg: M. Lotther, March, 1521). WA 7, 308 ff.; LW 32, 7 ff.

190

TO JOHN VON STAUPITC, JANUARY 14, 1521
Farewell and be strong in the Lord.

Wittenberg, the day of St. Thomas the Martyr (as many be-
lieve), 1 * 1520

Martin Luther

To John von Staupitz
Wittenberg, January 14, 1521

Using the very words with which von Staupitz had once en-
couraged him , Luther challenges his former superior to have
confidence in the cause of the gospel and assures him of his own
courage . He reports on the burning of some papal books and tells
about the actions of some of his enemies ( Eraser , Duke George ,
Thomas Murner) as well as of the burning of his books. He com-
ments briefly on von Huttens paraphrase of the bull (see p. 179 ,
n. 1).

On John von Staupitz, see p. 64, n. 1.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 245-246 ; translation based on S-J 1,
440-441.

Jesus

Greetings. When we were at Augsburg 1 and discussed my case,
Most Reverend Father, you said to me among other things,
“Remember, Friar, you began this in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” I have accepted this word not as coming from you but as
spoken to me through you, and I have kept it firmly in mind ever
since.

Therefore I now challenge you with your own statement:
remember that you said this to me. 2 Up to now one has only

16 A reference to the martyrdom of St Thomas a Becket on December 29,
1170 (see O.D.C.C., pp. 146 f.).

1 October, 1518; see p. 86.

2 Having resigned from the office of vicar general in the summer of 1520
(see p. 171, n. 7), von Staupitz went to Salzburg seeking tranquillity. But he
did not find it. On January 4, 1521, he wrote to Link (see pp. 169 f.)

191

LETTERS

played around in this case; now something serious is at hand . 8
As you have said, unless God executes it, it cannot be executed
at all. All these things are now completely in the hand of Almighty
God. No one can deny this. Who can advise here? What can
man plan? There is such a tremendous turmoil that I think it can-
not be quieted except by the arrival of the Last Day, so great is
the animosity on both sides.

The papacy is not now what it was yesterday and the day
before. Even if it excommunicates me and bums my books, and
even kills me, doubtless something portentious is at the door. How
happy the Pope would have been if he had begun this affair with
good mediators for establishing peace rather than with force and
storms for the destruction of Luther. I have burned the books of
the pope and the bull , 4 at first with trembling and praying; but
now I am more pleased with this than with any other action of
my life, for [these books] are worse than I had thought.

Emser is writing against me in German from Leipzig . 5 He is

that Cardinal Lang, the archbishop of Salzburg, had been instructed to
make him (Staupitz) “assert that Martin's opinions are respectively heretical,
erroneous, . . . and to reject them in the presence of a notary and wit-
nesses.” See WA, Br 2, 246, n. 2; S-J 1, 437. The W A, Br editor suggests
that Link informed Luther of Staupitz’s letter and that Luther's encouraging
statement should be seen against this background. How great the pressure
von Staupitz was exposed to after the bull (see p. 179, n. 1) was published
can be seen from the fact that even Erasmus, who lived in Louvain, knew
of it; see Allen 4, 1166.

8 This must refer to the pending Diet of Worms and the fact that the
Emperor would deal with the case of the heretic, who was now excom-
municated. Since Luther did not recant (as was stipulated in the bull
Exsurge, Domine), the Pope issued the bull Decet Romanum on January
3, 1521, in which Luther was excommunicated. Thus the Papal See tried

to prevent further interference by the secular authorities. The only thing

the Emperor could do if he wanted to be a faithful son of the church
was to turn Luther over to the papal authorities.

4 See pp. 186 f.

5 Jerome Emser; see p. 137, n. 19. He published the first part of a sharp

rebuttal of Luther's little book To the Christian Nobility of the German
Nation (see p. 171, n. 5) in December, 1520, which he completed in
January, 1521; for bibliographical details, see WA 7, 260. As soon as
Luther had seen this first fascicle of Emser's work, he wrote a preliminary
reply: An den Bock zu Leipzig (To the Leipzig Goat) (Wittenberg: M.
Lotther, January ?, 1521). WA 7, 262 f.; PE 3, 282 f. Emser answered
at once with his An den Stier von Wittenberg (To the Wittenberg Bull)

(for a bibliography, see WA 7, 266), dated January 20, 1521, which

Luther countered with his Auf des Bocks zu Leipzig Antwort (Reply to
the Answer of the Leipzig Goat) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg, February P,

192

TO JOHN VON STAUPITZ, JANUARY 14, 1521

strongly influenced by Duke George , 6 who is furious at me. While
breathing threats and murder , 7 the Duke has proposed in the
court 8 the most ungodly actions against me.

I have been summoned by the Emperor in a letter delivered
to the Sovereign; but the Sovereign objected to it, and soon the
Emperor revoked the summons in another letter . 9 God knows what
will happen.

Our Vicar Wenceslas 10 has gone to Niimberg. Zeschau is in
Grimma . 11 One says he has left [the Order]. May God keep him.
Everything is flourishing here, as previously.

Hutten 12 has written a commentary upon the bull 13 with the
sharpest remarks against the pope; he is planning other steps
in regard to this affair.

1521). WA 7, 271 f.; PE 3, 289 f. On January 20, 1521, the rest
of the fascicles of Emser’s work against Luther's To the Christian Nobility
of the German Nation (see above) were completed (see WA 7, 260);
they reached Wittenberg at the beginning of February. Luther began to
work on his reply at once. It developed into a basic rebuttal of Emser’s
attacks on the position Luther had taken in To the Christian Nobility of
the German Nation. Luther’s answer is entitled: Auf das Uberchristlich ,
ubergeistlich und uberkiinstlich Buch Bocks Erasers zu Leipzig Antwort
(Dr. Martin Luther s Answer to the Superchristian, Superspiritual , and
Superleamed Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg,
1521); it was completed March 29, 1521; see WA 7, 621 ff. ; PE 3, 310 ff.

6 On Duke George, see p. 110, n. 20; p. 144, n. 2; p. 149, n. 6.

7 Acts 9:1.

8 It is not clear to which court Luther refers, the Duke’s, the Elector’s,
or the Emperor’s.

9 Luther refers to the letters of which Spalatin had sent copies with letter
No. 68: Emperor Charles V (see pp. 175 f. ) to Elector Frederick (see pp.
49 f.): November 28, 1520. DRTA. JR 2, No. 61; S-J 1, 398. This was
an invitation to bring Luther along to the diet. Elector Frederick to
Emperor Charles V: December 20, 1520. DRTA. JR 2, No. 63; S-J 1, 429 f.
In this letter the Elector refused to bring Luther to the diet; apparently
he did not want to risk Luther’s safety but rather wanted to force the
Emperor to grant a safe-conduct. However, on December 17, 1520, the
Emperor revoked the invitation, since in the meantime he had been in-
formed of the bull Exsurge, Domine (see note 3); he wanted to discuss
the affair with the Elector in person before deciding on further action;
see DRTA. JR 2, No, 62; S-J 1, 424 f.

10 Wenceslas Link; see pp. 169 f.; he was then on a visitation trip as vicar
general.

11 Wolfgang Zeschau, former prior of the monastery in Grimma; see WA,
Br 1, 227, n. 1.

12 Ulrich von Hutten; see p. 163, n. 1.

18 See p. 179, n. 1. This was an attack by von Hutten against the bull;
for biographical details, see WA, Br 2, 233, n. 12; for the text, see Booking 5,
301 ff.

193

LETTERS

They 14 have burned me three times [in effigy]: at Louvain,
at Cologne, and at Mainz. At Mainz, however, it was done with
great scorn, even with danger for those who did the burning . 16

Thomas Mumer has also written furiously against me . 16 I will
wait to see about that barefooted ass of Leipzig . 17

Farewell, my Father; pray for the Word of God and for me.
I am carried away and tossed about by the waves.

Wittenberg, January 14, 1521

Martin Luther

Augustinian

To Elector Frederick
Wittenberg, January 25, 1521

Luther thanks the Elector for sending information on the Em-
perors stand on his case ; he renews his offer to come to the diet,
if prodded with sufficient guarantees, and asks the Elector to
intercede with the Emperor on his behalf.

On Elector Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: W A, Br 2, 253-255.

14 Luther’s enemies.

15 When the bull Exsurge , Domine ( see p. 179, n. 1 ) became known, Luther’s
books and Luther-in-effigy were burned in many places; see also W A, Br
2, 225, n. 15.

16 Thomas Mumer of Oberehnheim/Alsace, O.F.M. (1475-1537), made poet
laureate by Emperor Maximilian in 1505, was graduated as Doctor of
Theology by the University of Freiburg/Breisgau in 1506 and as Doctor of
Canon and Secular Law by the University of Basel in 1519. After some time
spent in the service of Henry VIII of England and in the service of the
Bishop of Strassburg he returned to his native town to be a preacher there.
Mumer was famous for the biting humor to which he exposed his con-
temporaries in his many satires. He was perhaps the most popular enemy
of Luther, whom he attacked primarily in German. In 1520 Mumer
published a little book against Luther’s To the Christian Nobility of the
German Nation (see p. 171, n. 5); for biographical information on this
attack, see WA 7, 615. Luther replied to him in a separate chapter of
his Answer to the Superchristian . . . Book of Goat Eraser; see note 5.

17 Augustine Alveld; see p. 164, n. 9.

194

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, JANUARY 25, 1521

To the Most Serene and Noble Sovereign and Lord, Sir Frederick,
duke in Saxony, elector and viceroy of the Holy Roman Empire,
landgrave in Thuringia, margrave in Meissen, my
Most Gracious Lord and Patron

Jesus

Most Serene, Noble Sovereign, Most Gracious Lord: Before all else,
my poor prayers and my humble services are always obediently
at Your Electoral Grace’s disposal.

Most Gracious Lord: I have received Your Electoral Grace's
gracious information with regard to the deliberation and opinion
of His Roman Imperial and Spanish Royal Majesty , 1 my Most
Gracious Lord, concerning my case . 2 * I most humbly thank His
Imperial Majesty and Your Electoral Grace for this favor. I heartily
rejoice that His Imperial Majesty wants to take upon himself this
case; God willing, it is a case of God, of universal Christendom,
and of the whole German nation— and not of a single man, much
less my own.

I repeat: I am humbly willing to do or to omit doing all that
I can before God and with Christian dignity, or to do or to omit
doing all that I am told, on an honorable, Christian, and satis-
factory basis of holy divine Scripture. That I have always been
willing to do this may be seen by my manifold offers 8 and espe-
cially by that offer which was printed recently, of which I am
enclosing a copy for Your Electoral Grace . 4 *

Therefore I beseech Your Electoral Grace in all humility to
intercede most humbly on my behalf with His Roman Imperial
Majesty, in order that he may graciously provide me with sufficient
security and a safe-conduct against all violence, about which I

1 Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

2 Luther is referring to a (not extant) letter from Elector Frederick in
which the Elector apparently informed him of his meeting with the
Emperor. This meeting seems to have changed the attitude the Emperor
had expressed in his December 17 letter to the Elector. See p. 193, n. 9;
DRTA. JR 2, 470, n. 2.

8 See p. 74, n. 7.

4 Luther is enclosing a printed copy of his Offer and Protest; see p. 172,

n. 4; p. 174, nn. 5, 6.

19 5

LETTERS

have to be especially careful . 5 May [His Imperial Majesty] also
[graciously] arrange that this case be turned over to devout,
learned, understanding, trustworthy, and Christian men, both
clergymen and laymen, who are well versed in the Bible and who
understand and differentiate between divine and human laws and
commands, in order to discuss the case carefully with me. May
[His Imperial Majesty], for the sake of God, not allow the use of
force against me until I have been shown to be un-Christian and
wrong. [May His Imperial Majesty], as secular head of holy Chris-
tendom, be concerned that in the meantime my opponents, the
papists, cease their storming and un-Christian actions against me,
their burning of my books, and their raging plots against my body,
honor, welfare, life, and salvation (undertaken although I have
not been investigated or convicted). [Please intercede on my
behalf with His Imperial Majesty] that I may be graciously excused
for whatever I may have done (or may in the future be forced
and provoked to do) in necessary defense against these things—
more in order to save the divine evangelical truth than my own
insignificant and unworthy self— and that [His Majesty] may hold
me in gracious protection, in order that the divine Word may be
saved, and that he may be to me a most gracious lord. For this
and all the other virtues and favors worthy of a Christian emperor
and sovereign, I confidently look to His renowned Imperial Majesty
and Your Electoral Grace, as to my [most gracious lords].

For in humble obedience, I am prepared to come to the
pending Diet of Worms if I receive sufficient guarantee and a safe-
conduct for the journey there and back. I am willing to appear
before said devout, learned, and neutral judges. With the help
of the Almighty I am ready to present myself and give account so
that each one may truly learn that I have until now done or said
nothing out of a blasphemous, rash, or inordinate desire, or for
temporal and worldly glory and profit . 6 [Then one may truly learn
that] all that I have written or taught was for the sake of my
conscience and my oath and obligation as a humble teacher of

5 The summons and the safe-conduct were issued on March 6, 1521; see
WA, Br 2, No. 383; S-J 1, 482 ff.

•For similar statements, see pp. 69, 103, 171.

196

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, APRIL 14, 1521

Holy Scripture , 7 to the praise of God, for the welfare and salvation
of all Christendom, and for the good of the whole German nation.
[Then one may truly learn that] I have worked for the eradication
of dangerous abuses and superstitions and the liberation of holy
Christendom in its entirety from so many endless, innumerable,
un-Christian, and damnable tyrannical diminutions [of the gospel],
burdens, and blasphemies.

May Your Electoral Grace and His Roman Imperial Majesty
harbor a Christian attitude 8 and understanding for the deeply
troubled situation of all Christendom. Knowing that divine mercy
and grace is with you, still, for the sake of His Imperial Majesty
and Your Electoral Grace, I, a poor and humble priest, am both
bound and willing in all humility always to pray for this 9 to God
with my poor supplication.

Written at Wittenberg , January 25, 1521

Your Electoral Graces obedient,
dedicated priest,

Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Frankfurt/Main, April 14, 1 1521

Luther is on his way to Worms ; he expresses his determination to
appear before the diet in spite of all adversities .

On Luthers journey to Worms , see Schwiebert, pp. 496 f. On
George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 298.

7 For Luther’s understanding of his obligations as a doctor of the church,
see p. 49, n. 23.

8 Luther wrote Auge, i.e., “eye.”

9 The antecedent of “this” is unclear; it could be the “troubled situation,*
or the fact that both sovereigns should have or develop a Christian under-
standing of the situation.

1 Missing in the autograph; for the dating, see WA, Br 2, 298, n. 1. Ac-
companied by the Imperial herald Caspar Sturm, Luther and his party
left Wittenberg on April 2 and arrived in Frankfurt/Main on April 14.

197

LETTERS

To my friend in the Lord, Master George Spalatin, Saxon
court chaplain, honored in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. I am coming, my Spalatin, although Satan has done
everything to hinder me with more than one disease. All the way
from Eisenach to here I have been sick; I am still sick in a way
which previously has been unknown to me . 2 Of course I r ealize
that the mandate of Charles has also been published to frighten
me . 8 But Christ lives, and we shall enter Worms in spite of all the
gates of hell and the powers in the air . 4 I enclose copies of the
Emperor s letters . 8 It is not wise to write further letters until I
first see in person what has to be done, so that we may not en-
courage Satan, whom I have made up my mind to frighten and
despise. So, prepare the lodging.

Farewell.

Frankfurt , 1521 Mabt[in] Luther

2 What troubled Luther’s health (never the best anyway; see p. 69, n. 26;
P* 217, n. 15) is not known; nevertheless it must have been quite serious.
During the stopover in Eisenach Luther’s friends even feared for his life.
After being “bled” and talcing some medicine, Luther was able to get
a good night’s sleep, enabling him to continue his journey; see WA, Br
2, 298, n.

8 This was a mandate issued by Charles V on March 10 to confiscate
Luther’s books, which were declared heretical; see DRTA. JR 2, No. 75.
Luther was informed of this hostile step as soon as he reached Weimar.
Friends suggested that he not continue his journey. However he replied^

. . . regardless of the fact that I have been placed under the ban and that it
has been publicized in all the towns, I shall proceed and trust in the
Kaiser’s [Emperor’s] safe-conduct”; see WA, TR 5, No. 5342; 3, No. 3357.

4 Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:2. WA, TR 5, No. 5342; 3, No. 3357. "I would enter
Worms even if as many devils were in that city as tiles on the roofs.” Luther
had written a similar statement in 1518 when he went to Augsburg (see
p. 83); see WA, Br 1, No. 96. See also in this volume, p. 390.

8 Probably copies of the summons and safe-conduct; For the text, see WA.
Br 2, No. 383; S-J 1, 482 ff.

198

TO JOHN CUSPINIAN, APRIL 17, 1521

To John Cuspinian
Worms, April 17, 1521 1

Within a few hours after his first hearing before the Diet of Worms,
Luther gives this report of what took place.

John Cuspinian (the Humanistic name of John Spieszhaimer)
was a prominent figure at the Hapsburg court in Vienna, president
of the University of Vienna in 1500, curator of the library, keeper
of the archives, famous poet, diplomat, and physician. One of his
relatives was in Worms and urged Luther to write to Cuspinian.
In the beginning Cuspinian had been favorably inclined toward
Luther and the Reformation and had even worked toward re-
organizing the church in the Hapsburg territories. Later however,
after the Reformation was accompanied by the Wittenberg dis-
turbances (see p. 386, n. 1) and the Peasants 9 War, he retreated.
Apparently he then became antagonistic to the cause of the Ref-
ormation. He died in 1529. Hans A. v. Kleehoven, Der Wiener
Humanist Johannes Cuspinian, Gelehrter und Diplomat zur Zeit
Kaiser Maximilians I (Koln-Graz: Bohlau, 1959).

See pp. 201 f., 204 ff.; LW 32, 101 ff.; Schwiebert, pp. 501 ff.
Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 300.

To the most distinguished and learned Mr. Cuspinian, librarian
of His Imperial Majesty at Vienna, my friend,
honored in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. Your brother , 2 most distinguished Cuspinian, has easily
convinced me to daie to write to you from the midst of this turmoil,
since even prior to this I wanted to be acquainted with you because
of the fame of your name. Please add me to the list of your
friends, that I may attest the truth of what your brother has

1 Luther arrived in Worms on April 16 before noon.

2 Luther wrote F rater camis tuae, literally, “the brother of your flesh.**
It is not clear whom Luther means; for several possibilities established
by the WA, Br editor, see WA, Br 2, 300, n. 1.

199

LETTERS

reported to me with such great enthusiasm concerning you [and
your kindness].

I appeared at this hour before the Emperor and the Imperial
diet . 8 I was questioned as to whether I would want to renounce
my books. I answered then that these were certainly my books and
that I would tell them my opinion concerning any renunciation
the following day, since more opportunity and time for delibera-
tion on this issue has been neither asked nor granted . 3 4 * With
Christ’s help, however, I shall not in all eternity recant the least
particle.

Farewell, my dearest Cuspinian.

Worms , , April 17 , 1521 6 * 8

To Lucas Cranach

Frankfurt/Main, the morning of April 28, 1521 1

On his way back from Worms Luther reports to Cranach on the
final outcome of the diet and informs him that he will go into
hiding for a while . He asks Cranach to express his appreciation to
the city council for the transportation they had provided him. He

3 April 17, 4:00 p.m. Luther wrote Senatu Romano, “Roman senate.”
On the diet, see p. 70, n. 1. Luther was accompanied by Doctor Jerome
Schurf (see p. 219, n. 2), who acted as his legal counsel and insisted that
the titles of the books be read before Luther acknowledged them. The
interrogation was conducted by John von Eck, a member of the staff of
the Archbishop of Trier; he is not to be confused with the John Eck
who had opposed Luther in the Leipzig Debate (see p. 80, n. 13).

4 Luther means that not having been informed in advance that he would

be asked only these two questions, he had not petitioned for time to

deliberate in private or to elaborate on his stand before the diet, and

consequently this time was not available to him. Therefore he could not
give an answer but had to delay until the following day. After a short
consultation of the three colleges of the diet (see p. 70, n. 1), Luther
was dismissed on the condition that he would give his answer the following
afternoon. For a detailed report on the events from a papal point of
view, see S-J 1, 525 ff.

8 The autograph apparently is unsigned, since WA, Br does not reproduce
any signature.

1 Luther had left Worms on April 26 about 10 a.m.

200

TO LUCAS CRANACH, APRIL 28, 1521

also suggests someone for the post of preacher which had become
vacant by his absence .

Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553), one of the most famous
artists of the Reformation, had a very close relationship with
Luther . Cranach and his school produced many of the outstanding
altar pieces of the sixteenth century, portrayed many of the theo-
logical and politically important figures of the Reformation, and
furnished countless numbers of woodcuts for satirical pamphlets, as
well as illustrations for the German edition of the Bible . See
O.D.C.C., p . 352; G. and K. Noehles, “Cranach, Lucas, the Elder ,”
Encyclopedia of World Art (New York), TV (1959), 64 /.

Text in German: WA, Br 2, 305.

To the subtle master craftsman, Lucas Cranach, painter in
Wittenberg, my dear fellow-godfather 2 and friend

Jesus

My services [are yours]. Dear fellow-godfather Lucas: I bless
you and commend you to God.

I shall submit to being "imprisoned” and hidden away, though
as yet I do not know where. 3 I would have preferred to suffer
death at the hands of the tyrants, especially those of the furious
Duke George of Saxony, 4 but I must not disregard the counsel of
good men; [I must await] his appointed time. 6

My arrival at Worms was not expected. You can all see from
the mandate with which I was suddenly confronted on my way,
just how the safe-conduct was kept. 6 I thought His Imperial

2 Luther wrote Gevatter, “fellow-godfather.” This can have two mean-
ings: a literal one (in this case, the godchild is unknown to us) or a
figurative one, in which it connotes closeness, friendship, or kinship. In
Luther's time this latter meaning was frequently used, so one could also
translate “my dear friend.”

• When the negotiations collapsed on April 25 Elector Frederick (see pp.
49 f.) discussed with his staff his plan to hide Luther for some time, and
someone informed Luther accordingly; see WA, Br 2, 300, n. 3.

4 Duke George of Saxony; see p. 110, n. 20.

LETTERS

Majesty 7 would have assembled one or fifty scholars and overcome
this monk in a straightforward manner. But nothing else was done
there than this: Are these your books? Yes. Do you want to
renounce them or not? No. Then go awayl O we blind Germans,
how childishly we act and allow the Romanists 8 to mock and fool
us in such a pitiful way!

Give my greeting to my fellow-godparent, your dear wife , 9
and tell her to take it easy in the meantime.

The Jews once in a while have to chant: “Jo, Jo, Jo ? 10 But
Easter Sunday will also come for us, and then we will chant
“Alleluia.” For a little while one has to be silent and suffer. For
a little while you will not see me, and again in a little while
you will see me— so said Christ . 11 I hope it will now be the same
way [with me]. But God's will, the very best possible, be done
in this— as in heaven, so also on earth. Amen.

Greet master craftsman Christian and his wife . 12 Please ex-
press my deep appreciation to the city council for my ride . 13 If
you do not find Licentiate Feldkirch 14 satisfactory, then you may
ask Mr. Amsdorf 15 to be your preacher; he will gladly do it.

Goodbye. With this I commend you all to God. May he pro-

7 Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

8 On the term “Romanists,” see p. 92, n. 16.

9 On the term “fellow-godparent,” see note 2. Cranach’s wife was Barbara
nee Brengbier, a daughter of the Mayor of Gotha; see WA, Br 2, 306, n. 6.

10 On the basis of the context it is clear that this is a reference to the
“Crucify” of Good Friday.

11 John 16:16.

12 Christian During, the goldsmith; see p. 42, n. 8. Diiring’s wife was a
certain Barbara nee Blankenfeld, who died in 1564; see WA, Br 2, 306, n. 10.

13 During had made available to the city council the wagon and the horses
Luther used for his trip to Worms. In addition to this ride the city council
provided Luther and his party with twenty gulden (on the gulden, see
p. 11, n. 2).

14 i.e., John Dolsch of Feldkirch/Voralberg ( 1485P-1523). He matriculated
in Heidelberg University in 1502 and Wittenberg University in 1504. In
1510 he was appointed a canon of the All Saints’ Chapter in Wittenberg,
in 1518 he was graduated as Licentiate of Theology (on this degree, see
p. 264, n. 3) and as Doctor of Theology in 1521. Although he was an
early supporter of Luther, he turned against the Reformation when Luther
directed his attention to the reform of the All Saints’ Chapter (see p.
338, nn. 8, 11).

15 Nicholas von Amsdorf; see p. 218.

202

TO EMPEROR CHARLES V, APRIL 28, 1521

tect in Christ the minds and faith of all of you from the Roman 16
wolves and dragons and all their followers. Amen.

Frankfurt/ Main, April 28, 1521 17

D. Martin Luther

To Emperor Charles V
Friedberg, April 28, 1521

In this letter, written on his way back from Worms, Luther gives
a resume of his conduct before the Diet. He expresses his
gratitude for the safe-conduct and asks for the Emperors con-
tinued protection, repeating his willingness to submit his case to
neutral judges.

According to Spalatins notation, inserted on the autograph
after the address, this letter never was given to the Emperor ; see
WA , Br 2, 307. This raises the question of how Spalatin came
into possession of the autograph. Perhaps this problem can be
solved by considering the autograph on which the WA, Br text is
based as Luthers first draft ; Luther copied from it the final
draft which he sent to the Emperor. On the same day Luther
wrote an almost identical letter in German to the Imperial Estates
so that his version of the events of the past days could become
general knowledge ; see WA, Br 2, No. 402. Both letters were pub-
lished almost at once and served Luthers cause well. On Emperor
Charles V, see pp. 175 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 307-310; translation based on S-J 1,
547-551.

To the Most Serene and invincible Lord Charles V, chosen
emperor of the Romans, Caesar Augustus , 1 king of the Spaniards,

16 See note 8.

17 Luther wrote “Cantate Sunday, 1521,” i.e., April 28. He arrived in Frank-
furt/Main on April 27 and left on the 28th, about 10 a.m.; see WA, Br
2, 306, n. 1.

1 On the tide “chosen emperor,” see p. 129, n. 6; p. 189, n. 8; pp. 98 f.
It was not before February 24, 1530, that Charles was crowned emperor.
The title “Caesar Augustus” was one of the many titles of the Roman

203

LETTERS

of both Sicily and Jerusalem, etc., archduke of Austria, duke of
Burgundy , 2 etc., my most clement Lord

Jesus

Grace and peace with all my submission in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Most Serene and invincible Emperor, most clement Lord:
Your Sacred Majesty had summoned me to Worms with a public
guarantee and a safe-conduct 8 in order to investigate my opinion
concerning the little books that were published under my name.
Complying with this summons, I appeared in all humility before
Your Sacred Majesty and the whole Imperial diet , 4 thus being
obedient in every way. Your Sacred Majesty ordered that I be
asked first whether I would acknowledge said little books as mine,
and second whether or not I would be ready to revoke them, or
would uphold them.

When I had acknowledged that [these little books] were
mine (in so far as no opponents or wiseacres have smuggled
anything into them or changed them), I pointed out with great
reverence and submission that the following was my opinion:
since I had fortified my little books with clear and intelligible
Scripture passages, it does not seem to me right or just to deny
the Word of God and revoke my little books in this way, nor
could I do it in any way. I humbly begged that Your Sacred
Majesty under no circumstances allow me to be forced into such
a recanting. [I further begged] that [Your Sacred Majesty] instead
be so concerned and either examine my little books yourself or
provide for others of any estate, even the lowest, whoever can,
to examine them-and that [Your Sacred Majesty] deign worthy
of refutation on the basis of divine, that is, evangelical and

emperor. In German documents it is sometimes translated with the equiv-
alent of “Always promoter (or augmenter) of the Empire.”

2 This list of titles represents the offices Charles held and the territories
he governed. The title “king of Jerusalem” had been used by the Roman
emperor since 1229, when Jerusalem had been peacefully surrendered to
Frederick of Hohenstaufen (see O.D.C.C., pp. 525 f.), who then had
himself crowned king of Jerusalem. At Charles's time this title had little
political meaning; it symbolized only the emperor's claim to the Holy
Land and his responsibility toward the sacred places of Christianity.

8 On the safe-conduct, see p. 196, n. 5; p. 198, n. 3; p. 201.

4 On the diet, see p. 70, n. 1.

204

TO EMPEROR CHARLES V, APRIL 28, 1521

prophetical Scripture, such errors as are charged against these
books. With Christian willingness, I offered, if refuted and con-
victed of error, to recant everything and be the first to throw my
books in the fire and trample them underfoot.

In addition to all this, it was requested and demanded of
me that I answer simply and plainly whether or not I was ready
to recant. Again I answered as humbly as I could: since my
conscience is bound by the Scripture passages which I have
quoted in my little books, I could under no circumstances recant
anything, unless I would be better informed.

After this [interrogation ], 5 some electors, sovereigns, and
[members of] other Estates of the Empire urged me to submit my
little books to the investigation and judgment of Your Sacred
Majesty and other Imperial Estates . 6 The Chancellor of Baden 7
and Doctor Peutinger 8 tried hard to persuade me to do this. I
offered myself again in the same way as before [willing to recant],
provided only that I be instructed by divine Scripture or plain
reason. The possibility was finally discussed that I should make
a concession, and entrust some articles selected [from my books]
to the judgment of an Ecumenical Council.

I, however, who was always humbly and zealously ready to
do and suffer everything possible for me, could not obtain [the
fulfilment] of this one obviously completely Christian wish: that
the Word of God should remain free and unbound for me; that
presupposing this, I should submit my little books to Your Sacred
Majesty and the Estates of the Empire or even entrust them to

6 After the public negotiations were thus deadlocked, Luther was further
urged to recant through “behind-the-scenes” diplomacy. This situation
was quite dangerous. The Emperor's mind was made up: Luther is a
heretic and will be treated as such. On the other hand a strong pro-Luther
sentiment had developed, and men like von Sickingen (see pp. 244 f.) were
ready to take up arms for Luther. See Schwiebert, p. 506.

•The archbishops of Mainz (see pp. 44 f.) and Trier, the electors of
Saxony and Brandenburg, and others (Vehus and Peutinger, see notes 7,
8) met with Luther for an informal discussion on April 24.

7 This was Jerome Vehus, who had studied law in Freiburg and had been
a pupil of the then highly renowned Ulrich Zasius (a close friend of
Erasmus). Luther praised him for the fairness he demonstrated during
these meetings; see W A, Br 2, 322; S-J 1, 557.

8 Famous Imperial councilor and representative of the city of Augsburg.
Both officials met with Luther on April 25 early in the morning; see DRTA .
JR 2, No. 86.

205

LETTERS

the judgment of a council; and that nothing against Gods gospel
should be submitted by me or decreed by them. 9 This was the
crux of the whole controversy.

God, who searches the heart, will be my witness that I am
definitely ready to comply with and obey Your Sacred Majesty,
whether it bring me life or death, glory or shame, gain or loss.
For I have often offered myself in this way, 10 and now do so
again. I make no exceptions save the Word of God, 11 by which
not only man lives, as Christ teaches in Matthew 4 [:4], but which
also the angels long to see, according to I Peter 1 [:12]. Since
[the Word of God] is above everything, it has to be held ab-
solutely free and unbound in all things, as Paul teaches. 12 [The
Word of God] is never subject to any mans whim to lower its
importance or challenge it, no matter how great, how numerous,
how learned, and how holy the men are. This is true to such
an extent that St. Paul in Galatians 1 [:8] dares to exclaim and
reiterate, “If we or an angel from heaven should preach to you
a gospel [contrary to that which we preached to you] let him
be accursed.” And David says, “Put not your trust in princes,
in children of men, in whom there is no help.” 13 Nor is anyone
able to depend on himself, as Solomon says, “He who trusts in
his own mind is a fool.” 14 And Jeremiah says, 17 [:5], “Cursed
is he who trusts in man.”

Now in earthly things, which have nothing in common with
the Word of God and with eternal values, we ought to trust each
other. For to surrender these earthly things, to jeopardize and
lose them, does no harm to salvation, since we shall finally have
to give them up, even though we have guarded them. Concerning
the Word of God and the eternal values, however, God does not
allow this risk, that is, that man should surrender [the Word of
God] to man. For he has ordered that all men and all things
should be submitted only to him, as he alone has the glory of the

9 It is not clear whom Luther means, the members of a council, or of
the Imperial Estates, or the representatives of the Emperor, or perhaps all
of them together.

10 See p. 74, n. 7.

n See p. 74, n. 7; p. 178, n. 4.

12 H Tim. 2:9.

18 Ps. 146:3-4.

1 4 Prov. 28:20.

206

TO EMPEROR CHARLES V, APRIL 28, 1521

truth and is truth himself, while “every man” is “false” and vain,
as St Paul excellently points out in Romans 3 [:4]. This is not
wrong; for this faith and submission is actually the true service
and worship of God, which should not be offered to any creature,
as St. Augustine teaches in the Enchiridion l. 15 Therefore St
Paul considers neither the angels nor himself nor, without doubt,
any of the saints either in heaven or on earth, to be worthy of
this faith; on the contrary, he curses it. 16 They 17 would not
tolerate this either, much less expect it For to put ones con-
fidence in man in matters concerning eternal salvation would
mean to give to the creature that glory which is due only to the
Creator. I most humbly beg Your Sacred Majesty, therefore, not
to consider this decision 18 concerning the Word of God as stem-
ming from an evil motive, nor to interpret it harshly. My decision
has arisen from the said Scripture passages to which every crea-
ture righdy yields. The authority of this Scripture is greater than
the comprehension of the whole of mans reason, as St. Augustine
says. 19

I have sincerely demonstrated my esteem and loyalty for Your
Sacred Majesty. Your Sacred Majesty may easily see this from
the fact that I presented myself under Your Sacred Majesty’s
safe-conduct as a most obedient subject, fearing nothing, even
though I knew that my little books were burned by my enemies.
[I also knew] that in the meantime an edict was issued against me
and my little books in the name of Your Sacred Majesty, and
publicly posted in many places. 20 These things could have
frightened and held back this poor little monk, and with good
reason, had I not expected from the good Lord, Your Sacred
Majesty, and the Imperial Estates whatever is best, which I still do.

I could in no way obtain a refutation of my little books on
the basis of Scripture, and I was forced to leave without having

15 Luther apparently confused this passage with De civitate Dei ( The City of
God) (see Patrology, pp. 503 f.), X, 1, 2 (MPL 41, 277 £.); see also
Enchiridion, cap. 3. MPL 40, 232.

10 Gal. 1:8.

17 Either angels or saints, or both.

18 Luther wrote praeiudicium, which can mean a (judicial) examination
prior to a trial, or a judgment ( decision ) during or after a trial.

10 See note 15.

20 See p. 198, n. 3.

207

LETTERS

been refuted. The whole controversy, as I have mentioned, rests
upon the fact that no one was willing to refute on the basis of
Holy Scripture any erroneous articles [of faith] which are
supposed to be in my little books. No one gave me any hope
or promise that an examination or investigation of my little
books would be conducted in the light of Gods Word at some
time in the future. Nevertheless I thank Your Sacred Majesty
most humbly for having so carefully observed the safe-conduct
to Worms and for having pledged to uphold it until I arrived
again at my safe quarters . 21 I beg Your Sacred Majesty once
more for Christs sake not to allow me to be crushed by [my]
enemies, to suffer violence and be condemned, since I have so
often made myself available, as is becoming to a Christian and
an obedient man. For I am still absolutely ready to stand, under
Your Sacred Majesty's protection, before trustworthy, learned,
free, secular as well as ecclesiastical judges, and to be instructed
by Your Sacred Majesty, by the Imperial Estates, by councils,
doctors, or anyone else who can and is willing to do it. [I am
ready] to submit my little books and my teachings most willingly
to all and to endure and accept their examination and judgment,
excepting nothing, provided only that the Word of God remain
unobstructed, clear and free; certainly [the Word of God]
ought to remain above everything, and be the judge of all men.

For this reason, I now make my humble petition, not on
my behalf (since I am of no importance) but on behalf of
the whole church; it was my concern for the church that

21 On April 25, during an afternoon meeting with the Archbishop of Trier
which had been arranged by Vehus (see notes 7, 8), Luther, whose patience
was nearly exhausted, asked the Archbishop to obtain the Emperor's per-
mission for him to leave the diet. Asked by the Archbishop to suggest
ways of mediating, Luther, quoting Gamaliel (Acts 5:38-39), replied, “If
. . . this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God,
you cannot overthrow it” (see WA 7, 854). The gracious dismissal re-
quested by Luther was delivered to him between 5 and 6 p.m. the same
day, along with the promise that the safe-conduct would be observed
(giving him twenty-one days for a safe return) and an order not to
preach, write, or make a commotion among the people in any other way
while traveling home. On April 28, about 10 a.m., Luther and his party
left Worms; he was again accompanied by the Imperial herald Caspar
Sturm, who had escorted Luther from Wittenberg to Worms: see WA
7, 886 f.

208

TO EMPEROR CHARLES V, APRIL 28, 1521

motivated me to send this letter after having left town. 22 With
my whole heart I desire, of course, that Your Sacred Majesty,
the whole Empire, and the most noble German nation may be
served in the best possible way, and all be preserved in God’s
grace as happy people. Hitherto I have sought nothing but Gods
glory and the welfare 23 of all men. Even now I have not con-
sidered my own advantage, whether my opponents will condemn
me or not. For if Christ my Lord prayed for his enemies while
on the cross, 24 how much more should I, with joy and trust in
Christ, be concerned about and pray and plead for Your Sacred
Majesty, for your Empire, for my most beloved superiors, and
all native Germany. I expect nothing but the best from them,
relying on my afore-mentioned oflFer.

With this I commend myself to the shelter of Your Sacred
Majesty’s wings. May the Lord God guide and keep you for our
well-being and happiness. Amen.

Written at Friedberg, April 28, 1521

Your Most Serene Majesty’s
most dedicated supplicant, 25
Martin Luther

22 On the basis of this statement, Schwiebert's (p. 509; cf. Schwiebert,
p. 513) assumption that Luther wrote this letter and the letter to the
Imperial Estates (see p. 203) on April 25 in the evening has to be
modified. Luther, knowing of the Electors plan to hide him for some time
(see p. 201, n. 3), wrote both letters in Friedberg (a small town north of
Frankfurt/Main), perhaps upon Spalatin's suggestion (see Schwiebert, p.
513). Thus Luther had a good reason for dismissing the Imperial herald,
whom he ordered to return to Worms to deliver the letters. The herald
had to guarantee with his life Luther's safety; he would only have been
in the way when Luther was kidnapped.

23 Luther wrote salutem, which can also mean "salvation.”

24 Luke 23:34.

25 Luther wrote orator, which can mean orator, speaker, ambassador, or
one who entreats, connoting someone who prays for something or someone,
or speaks in behalf of someone.

209

LETTERS

To Philip Melanchthon 1
Wartburg, 2 about May 8, 1521

Discussing the outcome of the Diet of Worms, Luther expresses
some thoughts about the silence temporarily imposed on him .

Luthers “stiff-necked reply 79 (so Charles V, see Kidd, p. 86),
the Emperors inability to understand Luther* s concern, and the
pressure of the Curia resulted in the Edict of Worms (see Kidd,
No. 45). This edict was accepted by a pro-papal minority of the
diet in a rump session after the official closing of the diet and
issued on May 26, 1521. It stated that after the expiration of
the safe-conduct, Luther was to be treated as an excommunicated
heretic and as one who was banned. No one was to house or feed
him, and his books were to be burned. Anyone who saw Luther
was required to turn him over to the Imperial authorities ; if
he did not do so, then he himself was guilty of treason, which
was punishable by confiscation of property and all privileges
and even the death sentence.

Two major factors made the immediate execution of this edict
impossible: (1) While the Diet of Worms was still meeting,
Charles V became deeply involved with preparations for the first
war against France. He did not successfully end this war until
1526, and this prevented him from giving his full attention to
German internal affairs ; (2) Elector Frederick was convinced that
the way in which Luther had been treated was unfair and that
the edict was unconstitutional ; therefore he made “ arrangements *
for Luther to disappear for a while.

Until March of 1522, Luther was hidden in the Wartburg.
These months were a breathing spell for the Reformer. The
legal side of his case, though not settled, no longer disturbed
him; he was banned, yet for the time being he was safe from
the consequences of the ban. The church had excommunicated

1 On the identity of the person to whom this letter is written ( who is con-
troversial) and the date of this fragment, see WA, Br 2, No. 405, Introduc-
tion; 8, 661.

2 Obviously, none of the Wartburg letters gives the place from where Luther
wrote; the place can be inferred, however, from the contents.

210

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, ABOUT MAY 8, 1521

him and thus substantiated for him the fact that it did not want
to listen to the Word of God , to which Luther had tried to
direct it. The ruling powers in the church had made it obvious
that they did not intend to co-operate in any reform of the church.
In the solitude of the Wartburg confinement , Luther's thoughts
developed !, and he became increasingly concerned with reshaping
the life of the church on the basis of his insight into Scripture.

In spite of the Edict of Worms the Reformation movement
grew steadily in the decade from 1520 to 1530. Many monks and
nuns left the monasteries and convents, and many individuals,
congregations, and secular governments clamored for the preach-
ing of the true Word of God. Luthers insight into the Word of
God, his rediscovery of the gospel, became the foundation for
a new concept of church and society. Thus a church system
different from the Roman one came into being and spread rapidly
over all of Germany.

New problems arose. 3 The situation became quite compli-
cated when during Luthers absence, some men in Wittenberg
tried to force the issues to a radical solution ; the complexities

3 To name but a few problems: How should this new church understand
and practice the sacrament of penance, which had stirred up Luther's con-
troversy with Rome? ( See pp. 244 fE. ) How should one deal with monasticism
and the many questions which arose due to deserted monasteries (see pp. 277
ff., 283 ff., 297 ff., 310, 329 fE. ) and the monks and nuns who were abandon-
ing their monastic lives? How could Luther's concern for the gospel be
expressed in liturgy? (See pp. 324 f.) How should the administration of parishes
and discipline of congregations and their pastors be regulated and super-
vised? See WA, Br 4, No. 1091. How should one understand the authority of
secular government? (See pp. 258 ff. ) How should usury be handled and
how should crimes be punished? See WA, Br 3, Nos. 673, 780. How should
the legal authority of the Roman hierarchy be replaced in the administration
of the church at large, or in specific questions such as divorce cases? See
WA, Br 3, No. 780. The church visitations conducted in Electoral Saxony in
the second part of the decade of 1520 to 1530 clearly showed how complex the
situation was. Nevertheless the Protestant territorial church which developed
between 1521 and 1530 was, under the circumstances, the best possible
answer to these questions, although it was by no means the ideal solution.

Problems connected with the internal structure of the church of the
Reformation were complicated by another issue. Sovereigns supporting the
Reformation had to deal with political questions: What should their relation
be to one another? to the Imperial government? How should they counter
the political maneuvers of the Roman Catholic party? The policy of
political federations on a religious basis offered the only way out or this
dilemma, dangerous though it was.

211

LETTERS

increased when the work Luther had begun was confronted with
theological and social ideas which jeopardized the essence of the
Reformer’s thought . This crisis of the Reformation can be seen
in the Wittenberg disturbances of 1521/22 (see p. 386, n. 1), the
movement of the religious enthusiasts and the social radicals, and
in the understanding of the Lord/s Supper held by those who
rallied around Zwingli. From 1522 to 1529, Luther separated his
cause from his former friends and followers who misinterpreted
his basic concepts .

Letters No. 75 through 116 are all of Luther’s extant letters
from the Wartburg (with the exception of three letters which
are prefaces to some of his writings). These letters show Luthers
tremendous working capacity (see pp. 319 f.), which can be suffi-
ciently appreciated only if one remembers that he was barred
from using any library and from participating in any discussion
and receiving stimulation from such an encounter. The letters
document his deep concern for the Word of God as the basis of
the newly developing ecclesiastical system and for its application
to the situation, especially in Wittenberg. They record the
progress of the Reformation, and show how it eventually became
necessary for Luther to return to Wittenberg. Finally they give
insight into the feelings of this man who had been the center
of a circle of cordial friends and of a university, and who sud-
denly had to live in solitary seclusion— exactly like a hermit. As
a substitute for the fellowship he lacked, Luther seized every
opportunity to exchange letters ; every letter carrier who went
back and forth between Wittenberg and the Wartburg brought
letters and personal greetings to and from various friends.

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 330-331.

I have had much ado to get this letter off, so great is the fear

that my whereabouts may somehow be revealed . I * * 4 Therefore you
people, too, be careful. If you think it is to the glory of Christ

that the question of my disappearance (that is, whether friends
or enemies hold me) remains or becomes dubious, then be

4 Address, greeting, and signature are missing, since this letter and the
next one are only fragments. See p. 218, n. 1.

212

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, ABOUT MAY 8, 1521

silent . 5 With the exception of you and Amsdorf,® it is not
necessary that other people know anything else than that I am
still alive.

Who knows what God plans to work with these mighty men 7
by this counsel of silence? The priests and monks who raged
against me while I was free now dread me as a captive, so that
they start to soften their campaign against me. They cannot
bear the weight of the common peoples threats, but also they do
not know how to escape them. Behold, the hand of the Mighty
One of Jacob , 8 what it accomplishes while we are silent, suffer,
and pray. Is not the word of Moses true: “You will be silent and
the Lord will fight for you ”? 9

A certain Romanist wrote the Cardinal of Mainz : 10 We got
rid of Luther as we wanted; but the people are so stirred up
that I suspect we hardly shall save our lives unless we light
candles and search for him everywhere and invite him to return.
He was joking. But what will happen if the joke leads to serious
business? Meditate on it privately and be silent, etc . 11

To Philip Melanchthon 1
Wartburg, about May 8, 1521

Luther expresses his distaste for student riots against the clergy
of Erfurt , and his concern over the effects such events will have
on the Reformation .

5 Literally: “Therefore you people too be careful and silent, if you think
it can be done to the glory of Christ that it remain or will become dubious
whether they are friends or enemies who hold me.”

6 Nicholas von Amsdorf; see p. 218.

7 His enemies; perhaps an allusion to Isa. 5:14-15.

8 Gen. 49:24.

9 Exod. 14:14 (Vulgate).

10 On “Romanist,” see p. 92, n. 16; on Cardinal Albrecht, see pp. 44 f.

11 Literally: “Speak on your beds, and be silent,” etc. Smith (S-J 2, 22)
translates, “Speak upon your couch, and be still,” and considers this a
quotation of Ps. 4:4.

1 For the addressee and date of this fragment, see WA, Br 2, No. 406, Intro-
duction; 8, 661.

213

LETTERS

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. S.
Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 331-332.

I hear that there has been violence in Erfurt against the houses
of priests. 2 I am amazed that this is tolerated and bypassed by
the city council and that our Lang is also silent on this. 3 Although
it is good that those lazy, ungodly priests are harassed, yet this
method creates disgrace and just repulsion for our gospel. 4 I
would have written to Lang [about this], but I still cant. 5 This
kind of service toward us on the part of these people shocks me
tremendously. We clearly see from it that we are not yet worthy
before God to be servants of his Word, and that Satan mocks and
ridicules our efforts. How afraid I am that our work may be the
fig tree of the parable, of which it is predicted in Matthew 21
[:19] that it will grow only [leaves] before the Judgment Day
and not come to fruit. 6 The truth is indeed that it is only foliage
and words as long as we do not act in accordance with our
teaching.

2 Address, greeting, and signature are missing; see p. 218, n. 1.

3 Luther must have received news from Erfurt about these riots (for details,
see p. 224, n. 8) and also must have heard that Lang did not oppose them.
For a different interpretation of this passage, see WA, Br 2, 322, n. 1. On
John Lang, see p. 14.

4 Luther was afraid that such riots would be blamed on the Reformation, in
spite of the fact that the rioters often had little or nothing to do with Luther's
ideas.

5 See also p. 212. Hans von Berlepsch, the castellan of the Wartburg, tried
to keep Luther incommunicado as much as possible. Since Erfurt was under
the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Mainz, it could have been quite danger-
ous if a letter from Luther to Lang, who was then in Erfurt, had fallen into
the wrong hands.

6 See also Luke 13:6-9.

214

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 12, 1521

To Philip Melanchthon
Wartburg, May 12, 1521

Luther reports on the aftermath of the Diet at Worms and ex -
presses his concern for the sad condition of the church . Worried
about any consequences his sudden disappearance could have for
the church, he admonishes Melanchthon to be steadfast and to
continue the good fight for the gospel.

On Philip Melanchthon , see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 332-333 .

To Philip Melanchthon, evangelist of the congregation at
Wittenberg, my dearest brother in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. What are you doing these days, my Philip? Are you
not praying for me that this retreat to which I unwillingly con-
sented may result in something great for Gods glory? I am quite
eager to know your reaction [to my disappearance]. I was afraid
it would look as if I had deserted the battle array; and yet there
was no way to resist those who wanted and advised this. I desire
nothing more than to meet the fury of my enemies head on.

Sitting here all day, I picture to myself the state of the church
and I see fulfilled the word of Psalm 89 [:47]s 1 “Hast thou made
all sons of men in vain?” God, what a horrible picture of Gods
wrath is that detestable kingdom of the Roman Antichrist! I
abhor the hardness [of my heart], that I am not completely melted
to tears, so that I too might shed fountains of tears for the slain
sons of my people. 2 3 But there is no one who arises and lays
hold on God, or places himself as a wall for the house of Israel 8
on this last day of God’s wrath. O kingdom of the pope, worthy
of the end and dregs of the ages! 4 God have mercy upon us!

1 Vulgate, but RSV numbering.

2 As Jeremiah did; 9:1.

3 Isa. 64:7; Ezek. 22:30; 13:5.

4 See p. 104, n. 7.

215

LETTERS

You, therefore, as minister of the Word, be steadfast in the
meantime and fortify the walls and towers of Jerusalem until
[the enemy] also attack you. You know your call and your gifts.

I pray for you as for no one else, if my prayer can accomplish
something— which I do not doubt. Return, therefore, this service
so that we carry this burden together . 5 So far I stand alone in
the battle; after me they will seek you.

Spalatin writes 6 that an extremely harsh edict 7 is in prepa-
ration; challenging the conscience, they will now search the
whole world for my little books and in so doing swiftly prepare
destruction for themselves. The Rehoboam of Dresden 8 rejoices
and is very eager to execute such an edict. The Emperor 9 has
also been urged to write to the King of Denmark not to shelter
the leftovers of the Lutheran heresy. They chant this song, "When
will he die and his name perish ?” 10

Hartmuth Cronberg has renounced the Emperor s stipend of
two hundred gulden, being unwilling to serve one who listens
to those ungodly people . 11 I believe that the edict 12 will do no
5 Gal. 6:2.

•George Spalatin; see pp. 8 f. Luther had received Spalatin’s (no longer
extant) letter from Worms on May 12 (see p. 222) and forwarded it on die
same day to Melanchthon (see below). For some of the content of Spalatin's
letter, see Luther’s following statements and pp. 222 ff.

7 Reference to the first draft of the Edict of Worms. After the collapse of the
negotiations, Charles V and his cabinet on May 1 commissioned Jerome
Aleander, the papal legate to Germany, to draw up the final resolution con-
cerning Luther. Aleander presented a first draft to the Emperor on May 2;
the Emperor, in turn, forwarded it to the German Privy Council for judg-
ment, much against the will of Aleander. Discussions and revisions of this
first draft took some time and it was not before May 12 that Aleander could
present the final draft to the Emperor. See DRTA. JR 2, Nos. 89 ff.

8 1 Kings 12:12-14. Luther occasionally used this name for Duke George of
Saxony (see p. 110, n. 20) to stigmatize the Duke's arrogance.

9 Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

10 Ps. 41:5, in reference to Luther.

II Luther must have received this information through Spalatin’s letter ( see
note 6). Von Cronberg (1488-1549) was one of the Imperial knights whose
family estates were located in the Rhineland. He was involved in von
Sickingen’s defeat (see pp. 244 f.), in which he lost all his property. Yet his
relationship with Luther was more sober than that of the hotheaded von
Sicldngen and von Hutten. Between 1520 and 1525 he published various
smaller works which show a genuine understanding of the Reformer’s cause.
In later years, however, he became disillusioned with the Reformation, because
the Reformers were unable and unwilling to become the champions of na-
tionalism and Imperial reform. On Cronberg, see S-J 2, 23, n. 4.

12 See note 7.

216

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 12, 1521

damage anywhere, except under that Rehoboam 13 and your other
neighbor, 14 both of whom are plagued by vanity. God lives and
reigns in time and eternity. Amen.

The Lord has afflicted me with painful constipation. 15 The
elimination is so hard that I am forced to press with all my
strength, even to the point of perspiration, and the longer I delay
the worse it gets. Yesterday on the fourth day I could go once, but
I did not sleep all night and still have no peace. Please pray for
me. This affliction will be intolerable if it continues as it has begun.

The Cardinal of Salzburg 16 accompanied Ferdinand 17 to
meet his bride at Innsbruck on April 30, that is, four days after
our departure [from Worms]. It is said that Ferdinand was not
pleased with his traveling companion, nor was the Emperor, 18 as
Spalatin writes. 19 But you read his letter yourself. 20 Be sure to
write everything that happens at your place and how everything is.

Farewell to you and your wife. 21

May 12 I, 1521, in the land of the birds

Yours,

Martin Luther

ia Duke George; see note 8.

14 Elector Joachim I of Brandenburg, whom Luther occasionally compared
with Ben-hadad of Damascus (I Kings 20:3 ff.); see p. 56, n. 3; p. 220.

15 This was a chronic ailment which especially bothered Luther while he was
at the Wartburg; see pp. 219, 255, 257, 268 f., 276, 291, 316.

1G Matthew Lang, whom Luther had considered as a possible neutral judge
of his case; see p. 99, n. 14.

17 Ferdinand I (1503-1564) was the brother of Charles V (see pp. 175 f.). In
1521 Charles turned the governing of the German portions of the Hapsburg
territories, primarily Austria, over to Ferdinand. During the long absences
of the Emperor he was also viceroy. In 1556 Ferdinand succeeded Charles
as Emperor. Luther is referring to Ferdinand’s marriage to Anne of Hungary,
which took place in the spring of 1521. Luther confused Innsbruck with
Linz, where the marriage festivities took place; see WA, Br 2, 334, n. 16.

18 Charles V ( see pp. 175 f . ) was unhappy with Lang, since the Archbishop
was a strong representative of the German territorial sovereigns who intended
to preserve their independence against the Imperial policy.

19 See note 6.

20 At this point Luther apparently decided to include Spalatin's letter.

21 Luther wrote "your flesh,” which obviously is a reference to Gen. 2:23 and
Eph. 5:28-29. On Melanchthon’s wife, see p. 166, n. 5.

217

LETTERS

To Nicholas von Amsdorf
Wartburg, May 12, 1521

In this letter Luther informs von Amsdorf of some correspondence
matters and tells briefly of his capture and ride to the Wartburg .
He asks von Amsdorf, his traveling companion to and from
Worms, to report on the last leg of that journey, which von
Amsdorf had had to make alone. Luther also comments briefly
on the Edict of Worms and on his health ; he encourages his
friend to be steadfast in the cause of the gospel

Nicholas von Amsdorf (1483-1565) was already teaching
theology and philosophy at the University of Wittenberg when
Luther joined the faculty . Luther soon gained in him a very able
theological supporter and co-worker, as well as personal friend.
Von Amsdorf accompanied Luther to the Leipzig Disputation
(see p. 126) and to the Diet of Worms . In 1524 von Amsdorf went
to Magdeburg to lead the Protestant opposition against the Roman
Catholic clergy and to reform the congregations. In later years
he introduced the Reformation into many central German towns
and smaller territorial states. In 1542 Luther installed him as
evangelical bishop of the diocese of Naumburg, a position to
which he had been appointed by the Elector of Saxony. After
the Smalcaldic War, he had to resign this office due to the general
political situation. He went as superintendent to Eisenach, and
later to Magdeburg. In the doctrinal controversies which harassed
the church of the Reformation after Luther's death, he stubbornly
maintained Luthers position, sometimes unfortunately interpreting
Luthers ideas in a one-sided fashion. See O.D.C.C., p. 45.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 334-335.

Greetings. I recently wrote to all of you, my Amsdorf, but I lis-
tened to better advice and tore up everything, since it was not
yet safe to send out any letters . 1 Now I have written to Doctor

1 Perhaps Nos. 75 and 76 are some fragments.

218

TO NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF, MAY 12, 1521

Jerome 2 concerning the books and printed sheets , 3 and with this
letter I am also writing to the Prior 4 about it. All of you please
take care of those things which have to be done.

My constipation has become bad . 5 The Lord afflicts me. But
pray for me, because I always pray for you, that God may
strengthen your heart. Be faithful, therefore, and when [you are
given] an occasion to speak the Word of God, speak it with bold-
ness. Also write how everything went with all of you on the
journey , 6 and what you heard or saw at Erfurt . 7 You will find
with Philip 8 the letter Spalatin has written me . 9

The day I was snatched away from you, I arrived about
eleven o’clock in the dark of night at my quarters, tired out— as
a brand-new rider— from the long trip . 10 Here I am now a man
of leisure, like a free man among captives. Beware of the

2 Jerome Schurf of St. Gall (1481-1554) studied medicine in Basel and later
jurisprudence in Tubingen. In 1506/07? he settled down in Wittenberg to
practice law; he also taught law at the University and became an Electoral
Saxon councilor. He stayed in Wittenberg until 1546, when he was driven
by the events of the Smalcaldic War to F r ankf urt/ O der . While he was in
Wittenberg he became very close to Luther; their friendship was based on
mutual respect for each other’s knowledge. He served Luther as legal counsel
during the first hearing before the Diet of Worms on April 17 (see p. 200,
n. 3), and we may assume that he was with Luther in the critical hours from
the early evening of April 17 to the late afternoon of April 18, when the
Reformer’s famous answer to the diet was taking form. Luther’s letter to
Schurf is not extant.

3 This is a reference to the books Luther needed for the work he planned
to do at the Wartburg; see p. 225. “Printed sheets” refers to the first printed
pages of the Magnificat; see p. 225, n. 17.

4 Conrad Helt; see p. 125, n. 9. Luther’s letter is not extant.

5 Written in German, this sentence is omitted in all the early printed editions
of this letter and also in many translations; it can be found, however, in a
manuscript copy of the letter. If one realizes that Luther used a rather strong
word for “constipation,” one will understand that some editors omitted this
sentence to avoid giving offense to some “tender” ears. In Luther’s day,
however, such language was not considered vulgar. On Luther’s constipation,
see p. 217, n. 15.

6 Von Amsdorf accompanied Luther on the journey to and from Worms.
When Luther was captured on May 4, von Amsdorf continued the journey
alone. Luther now asks about the rest of von Amsdorf* s trip. For details, see
pp. 227 f.

7 See pp. 214, 223 f.

8 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

9 See p. 216, n. 6.

10 The armed horsemen who captured Luther in the late afternoon crisscrossed
the Thuringian Forest to avoid any possible pursuers and also to avoid leaving
any trace of their path. For details, see pp. 227 f.

219

LETTERS

Rehoboam of Dresden, and your neighbor, the Ben-hadad of
Damascus . 11 A sharp edict has been issued against me . 12 But the
Lord will laugh at them . 13

In Him farewell, and greet all to whom greetings are due.
May 12, 1521, in the land of the open skies

Yours,

Martin Luther

To John Agricola
Wartburg, May 12, 1521

Trying to maintain his ties with his friends, Luther sends best
wishes for the expected birth of Agricolas child . He also ex-
presses his concern about the preaching situation at Wittenberg .

John Agricola of Eisleben (1494P-1566) was one of Luthers
students who became a faithful and intimate friend. In 1518 he
was graduated from the University of Wittenberg as Master of
Arts ; in the same year he published (from his own notes) Luthers
homilies on the Lords Prayer ; see p. 113, n. 10. In 1519 he ac-
companied Luther to the Leipzig Disputation (see p. 126). He
married in 1520 and after 1525 worked as a reformer in Eisleben.
He became well known as a preacher and was temporary Electoral
Saxon court chaplain. Having difficulty with his territorial lords,
the counts of Mansfeld, Agricola returned to Wittenberg and began
to teach at the University in 1536. His close friendship with
Luther continued until sometime in 1537 or 1538, when the second
Antinomian controversy brought it to an abrupt end. In 1540
Agricola went as court chaplain to the Brandenburg court in
Berlin. He died in 1566 while general superintendent of the
church of Brandenburg. See O.D.C.C., p. 27.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 2, 335-336.

11 1 Kings 20:3 ff.; this is a reference to Duke George of Saxony and Elector
Joachim of Brandenburg; see p. 217.

12 See p. 216, n. 7. On May 2 Aleander forwarded the first draft of the edict
to the Emperor; see DRTA. JR 2, No. 90. Luther assumed that this draft had
been adopted. By May 12, however, the Emperor still had not signed the
revised copy of this first draft.

13 Ps. 2:4; 37:13.

220

TO JOHN AGRICOLA, MAY 12, 1521

To my friend John Agricola, a married theologian 1 and a free
man of Christ, living in Wittenberg

Jesus

Greetings. Of course I consider that all my letters written to
Philip and the others 2 are also addressed to you, my John (unless
with my disappearance fellowship among friends has likewise
disappeared, which God prevent). Yet I considered it good to
greet you with a personal letter, too . 8 Greetings therefore and
remember this word: “A servant is not greater than his master .” 4
Greet your flesh and rib . 5 May the Lord grant that she has a
happy delivery. Amen.

I am a strange prisoner, since I sit here both willingly and
unwillingly: willingly, since the Lord wants it this way; unwill-
ingly, since I would want to stand up in public for the Word of
God, but I have not yet been worthy of this. Wittenberg is hated
by its neighbors , 6 but the Lord [will see to it] that his time will
come; then he will laugh at them , 7 if only we have trusted in him.
Write what the situation is with the preaching and who was en-
trusted with it 8 so that I may strengthen either my hope or my
fear for the Word. Since you too are called in part to the office
of teaching the Word to the children, fulfil your ministry and bear
what the Lord lays upon you . 9 Look, I have written this only to
write something . 10

1 Since in the West theologians traditionally were priests and priests had for
some time been required to live in celibacy, a married theologian was unusual.
See also note 5.

2 See pp. 215 ff., 218 ff.; p. 219, nn. 2, 4.

3 Literally: “. . . to greet you also with my hand,” which is a technical term
for a letter (or any piece of writing) in one’s own handwriting.

4 John 13:16.

B I.e., his wife (see Gen. 2:21-23; Eph. 5:28-29). Agricola had married Else
(or Elizabeth) Moshauer on September 10, 1520; see WA, Br 2, 148, n. 7.

3 See p. 220, n. 11.

*Ps. 2:4; 37:13-14.

8 I.e., in Luther’s stead; see p. 202. Luther was preacher at the Stadt-
pfarrkirche , i.e., the parish church of the city (see p. 28), and was very much
concerned that his pulpit be properly filled during his absence.

9 In the spring of 1521 Agricola was appointed catechist of the city parish.
As such he was responsible for the religious instruction of the young; he also
helped with the preaching.

10 This sentence is missing in one manuscript copy of this letter.

221

LETTERS

Farewell to you and your whole family.

In the land of the birds , May 12, 1521

Martin Luther

Please 11 give one gulden 12 to the newborn, another to the
mother in childbirth confinement so that she can have wine and
have enough milk [for nursing]; for were I present, I would of
course be godfather. 18

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, May 14, 1521

Luther comments on the Edict of Worms, on the student riots
against some clergy of Erfurt, and on a similar incident which took
place in Gotha . He abo reports on his return from the diet, his
life in “captivity” and hb plans.

On Spalatin, see pp . 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 337-338.

To my dearest friend in Christ, George Spalatin, a most faithful
servant of Christ at Altenburg

Jesus

Greetings. I received your letter, 1 my Spalatin, and that of Gerbel
and the one from Sapidus, 2 on Exaudi Sunday. I have purposely
not written to you previously so that the recent rumor of my

11 This postscript is missing in one manuscript copy of this letter.

12 On the gulden, see p. 11, n. 2.

13 And thus give the mother and child a present from the child's godfather.

1 This is the letter to which Luther referred in the letter to Melanchthon
dated May 12 (see p. 216, n, 6). He received it on May 12, which was
Exaudi Sunday, or the Sunday after Ascension.

2 Two (not extant) letters which were sent to Luther at Worms; since Luther
had already left, Spalatin forwarded them to the Wartburg. On Nicholas
Gerbel, see pp. 317 f. Sapidus, or John Witz (1490-1561), of Schlettstadt/-
Alsace, studied under the Humanist Lefevre (see p. 26, n. 15). From
1510 to 1525 he was president of the famous college-type Latin school

222

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 14, 1521

capture would not cause anyone to intercept the mail. Various
stories about me are told in this area. The opinion becomes
stronger, however, that I was captured by friends who were sent
from Franconia . 3 The Imperial safe-conduct expires tomorrow . 4
I am grieved to hear from what you write that they will rage with
such a stiff edict, attempting to search even the consciences . 5 I
am not so much concerned about myself as about those rash people
who thus call down evil upon their heads and continue to burden
themselves with such great hatred. What tremendous hostility
such shameless violence will arousel But very well; maybe the
time of their visitation is at hand . 6

So far I have had no word from our friends at Wittenberg or
anywhere else. The young people at Erfurt damaged some houses
of priests during the night (at the time we were coming to
Eisenach). They were annoyed because the Dean of St. Severin,
a great papist, grabbed Master Draco (a man of sound opinion ) 7
by his robe and dragged him publicly out of the chancel, alleging

at Schlettstadt, which was a center of Humanism. He became a stout adherent
of the Reformation and was therefore pushed out of office. In 1526 he went
to Strassburg, where he stayed for the rest of his life; as at Schlettstadt, so
here too he was able to make the Latin school famous. See Allen 2, 323,
Introduction.

3 This rumor could easily have started, since Sylvester von Schaumberg, a
leading Franconian nobleman (see p. 169, n. 9), had offered Luther military
protection as early as June, 1520. On May 11, 1521, it was reported to
Aleander, the papal legate, that Luther had been kidnapped near Eisenach
and taken to Franconia; see WA, Br 2, 338, n. 5.

4 See p. 208, n. 21. Luther’s safe-conduct, issued on April 25 late in the
afternoon, guaranteed him twenty-one days for his return journey and thus
expired on May 15.

5 On the edict, see p. 216, n. 7; for a similar statement, see p. 216.

6 Perhaps an allusion to Jer. 46:21.

7 The dean of St. Severin' s Chapter was then a certain James Schroder
(also known as Doleatoris). John Draco (or Draconites) (1494P-1566) of
Karlstadt/Main matriculated in Erfurt in 1509, and later became a canon
of St. Severin in Erfurt. In 1521 he was forced to resign his canonry; soon
afterward he went to Wittenberg to study. After being graduated as Doctor
of Theology from Wittenberg University in 1523, he was a pastor for a short
time in Miltenberg, and Eisenach. From 1534 to 1547 he was a professor
of theology at Marburg University, and from 1551 to 1560 he held the
same position at the University of Rostock. In 1560 he was made bishop
of the Protestant church of Pomerania, a position he held for the remainder
of his life. He concentrated on compiling a polyglot Bible; between 1563 and
1565 some parts of this polyglot were published. See Ajlen 3 , 371 ,
Introduction.

223

LETTERS

that [Draco] was under excommunication because he, together
with others, had come to meet me when I arrived at Erfurt . 8
Meanwhile they fear worse; the city council ignores these things,
and the priests there have a bad reputation. It is said that the young
artisans conspire with the students. It is possible that they may
put into actuality the prophetic proverb, “Erfurt, a second Prague.” 9
Yesterday I was told that a certain priest at Gotha was roughed
up. The priests there procured some things— I don’t know what—
in order to enlarge the revenues of the church. Claiming the
ecclesiastical tax-exemption, they refused to pay the burdens, as
they call it, or taxes . 10 We see that the people are neither able nor
willing (as Erasmus also writes in his Advice ) n to put up with

6 According to WA, Br 2, 339, n. 9, the events Luther refers to have to be
reconstructed in the following way: On his way to Worms Luther stayed in
Erfurt and was welcomed by Master Draco and other members of the
Chapter of St. Severin. Since Luther had been officially excommunicated
since January (see p. 179, n. 1; p. 192, n. 3), Draco was by his action auto-
matically excommunicated too. The day after Luther had left for Worms, on
April 9, the Dean of St. Severin decided to discipline the clergy who had par-
ticipated in the reception for Luther. Draco did not comply with the Dean's
orders and as a result was disciplined in public; he was removed from the
chancel during a service and declared excommunicated. This infuriated the
people of the city, especially the students and apprentices. On May 1 and
2, retur nin g from Worms, Luther stopped in Eisenach. During that night
the situation in Erfurt exploded. The rioting students and apprentices rein-
forced the University’s demand that Draco be reinstated in his former position.
The Dean of St. Severin finally gave in, and Draco's excommunication was
nullified. Soon afterward Draco resigned his canonry and went to Wittenberg.
Luther heard rumors of these events (see p. 214) and on May 12 asked von
Amsdorf for a report (see p. 219). Since he complains that he has received
nothing thus far, his information must have come from people at the Wartburg.

9 In 1409 the ideas of John Huss caused a split in the then famous University
of Prague. This resulted in great disadvantages for the German professors
and students, many of whom left; some went to Erfurt, others founded the
University in Leipzig. Accompanied by rioting, this exodus gave rise to
a sharp decline of the University at Prague. By quoting this saying, Luther
wants to suggest that riots within a University may be a foreboding of its
decline; see WA, Br 2, 340, n. 11.

10 This incident could not be verified.

11 Apparently Erasmus’ Consilium cujusdam . . . ( Someone's Advice . . . ) .
W. K. Ferguson (ed.), Erasmi Opuscula (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,
1933), pp. 352 ff.; the passage Luther refers to is found on p. 358: “We
hear daily of serious accusations made by many people, who assert that they
could no longer endure the yoke of the Roman See.” On the authorship
and significance of this work, see WA, Br 2, 340, n. 13. Luther could also
possibly be referring to the Axiomata of Erasmus (see Ferguson, op. cit., p.
338; S-J 2, 27, n. 4); yet Luther's words seem to fit the Consilium better.

224

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 14, 1521

the yoke of the pope and the papists 12 any longer. And yet even
now [the papists] do not stop pushing and burdening the people.
Since the light reveals everything, they have lost their good name
and reputation; therefore their display of piety can no longer be of
any value and cannot dominate, as it has up to now. Thus far
they have increased hatred through violence and forcibly crushed
[their opponents]; but they will see whether such oppression can
continue.

I am sitting here all day, drunk with leisure . 13 I am reading
the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. I shall write a German tract on
the freedom of auricular confession . 14 I shall also continue work-
ing on the Psalms 15 and the Postil 16 as soon as I have received
the necessary things from Wittenberg— among which I also expect
the unfinished Magnificat . 17

You would not believe in what a friendly fashion the Abbot
of Hersfeld 18 received us! He sent the chancellor and the treasurer

12 S-J 2, 27, gives the following translation of the passage from note 12 to the
end of the paragraph: “. . . of the Pope and the papists; therefore let us
not cease to press upon it and to pull it down [the yoke of the Pope], espe-
cially as we have already lost name and fame by so doing. Now the light
reveals all things and their [papists] show of piety is no longer valuable
and cannot rule as hitherto. We have grown by violence and driven them
back by violence; we must see if they can be driven back any more.” This
paraphrased translation can be supported by the original text. Nevertheless
this translator did not consider this support strong enough to adopt Smith's
rendering. In the last sentence this translator used the text taken from the
manuscript copy of this letter, which differs from the printed editions.

13 For a similar statement, see p. 221.

14 See p. 246, n. 10.

« See p. 121, n. 7.

16 See pp. 237 ff. Luther used the word Postilla. This is a technical term
of medieval exegesis; it is derived from post ilia verba, i.e., “after those
words of [Scripture],” and designates the exegesis which follows the quoted
text. The most famous Postilla was by Nicholas of Lyra (see p. 26, n. 14).
The word can be used in the singular, designating a postil, i.e., an explanation
of a biblical text, and in the plural, designating many postils, many explana-
tions of many biblical texts, or a book that provides a running commentary
on biblical texts. It can be assumed that Luther used the term in the latter
meaning.

17 “Unfinished” is missing in the manuscript copy of this letter but can be
found in the earliest printed editions. “ Magnificat ,” that is, the first printed
sheets of the Magnificat (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, 1521). W A 7, 544 ff.:
PE 3, 123 ff. The printing of this work probably was begun at the end of
1520. Luther finished the manuscript at the Wartburg; see p. 254, n. 4.
The printing was not completed before September, 1521.

18 “Hersfeld” was a famous Benedictine monastery north of Fulda, founded

225

LETTERS

a good mile out to meet us; then he himself, together with many
riders, met us at his castle and accompanied us into town. The
city council welcomed us inside the gate. He fed us sumptuously
in his monastery and made his private chamber available for my
use. On the fifth morning 19 they compelled me to preach. I
pleaded in vain that the monastery might lose the royal privileges
if the Emperor’s officials should interpret this as a breach of the
safe-conduct, since they had forbidden me to preach while on my
way. Nevertheless I said that I had not consented that the Word
of God should be bound; and this is true. 20 I also preached at
Eisenach; 21 the fearful parish priest, however, protested before me
in the presence of a notary and witnesses. Yet he humbly
apologized for the necessity of doing so, pleading fear of his
tyrants. 22 Perhaps you may hear at Worms, therefore, that I broke
the safe-conduct by this, but it was not broken. The condition
that the Word of God should be bound was not within my power
[to uphold], nor did I agree to it; 23 and even if I had agreed to it,
it would not have been binding since it would have been against
God’s will.

in 742, or shortly thereafter. From 1516 to 1556, Kraft Myle of Hungen was
abbot there; see WA, Br 2, 340, n. 20; S-J 2, 28, n. 3. After this meeting with
Luther he was favorably inclined toward the Reformation, allowing his monks
to abandon monastic life and leave the monastery. Through Myle’s careful
diplomacy, Hersfeld was freed from the jurisdiction of the diocese of Fulda
and became a part of the territory of the Landgrave of Hesse. In 1606 the
monastery was dissolved, and a member of the ruling family of Hesse became
administrator of the monastery’s territory and funds. In 1648 it became a
secular state and was incorporated into Hesse-Kassel.

19 I.e., on the fifth day after leaving Worms: May 1; see also p. 208, n. 21.

20 On the safe-conduct, see p. 208, n. 21. Luther is correct here. Replying

to the two officials who delivered the gracious dismissal, the safe-conduct, and
the order not to preach, he stated in the presence of a notary: . . he

wanted to comply obediently with His Majesty’s order and instruction and
do all things . . . excepting nothing here on earth, than the very Word of
God, which he wanted to consider to be free and unbound, to confess and
profess it.” See WA 7, 856.

21 May 3; see note 26.

22 Luther had been excommunicated since January, 1521; see p. 179, n. 1;
p. 192, n. 3. For a parish priest voluntarily to allow an excommunicated
person even to enter the sanctuary, not to speak of one who was a priest,
was dangerous and invited excommunication for the priest and even the
interdict for the parish.

23 Luther made a similar statement in his April 28 letter to Emperor Charles
V; see pp. 205 ff.

226

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, MAY 14, 1521

[The Abbot] at last accompanied us on the next day 24 as far
as the forest; he sent the chancellor with us, and had us all dine
again at Berka . 25 Finally we were met by the people of Eisenach
who came out of the town on foot, and we entered Eisenach in
the evening . 26 The next morning all the traveling companions
left, together with Jerome . 27 I went on through the forest to my
relatives (who occupy almost all that region ). 28 We 29 left them
when we turned toward Waltershausen. After a short while, close
to the Altenstein Castle , 30 I was captured . 31 Amsdorf knew of
course that I was to be captured by someone but does not know
where I am in custody. My fellow-friar , 32 seeing the horsemen
in time, jumped off the wagon and is said to have arrived in
Waltershausen in the evening, unseen and on foot.

24 May 2.

25 A small village at the Werra River, about halfway between Her sf eld and
Eisenach.

26 May 2; Luther then preached on May 3.

27 On May 3 Luther's party split up. Luther and his companions ( see notes
29, 32) went from Eisenach straight south for about twelve miles to Mohra
to visit relatives, with whom they stayed overnight. Peter Swawe, a student
(see p. 236), and Justus Jonas (see p. 275, n. 3) traveled with Jerome
Schurf (see p. 219, n. 2) along the direct route from Eisenach to Witten-
berg. This split was obviously premeditated to make the kidnapping easier.

28 See p. 145; WA, Br 2, 340, n. 28.

29 Luther, von Amsdorf (see p. 218), and John Petzensteiner (see note 32).

30 Mohra is located about twelve miles south of Eisenach. Turning sharply
to the east and slightly to the north, the road to Waltershausen passes by
the Altenstein Castle, which is located on the southwestern slopes of the
Thuringian Forest, southwest of Erfurt or Gotha, and almost straight southeast
of Eisenach. It had been the residence of the Saxon family Hund von
Wenckheim since Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.) had given it to his
faithful servant Burckhard Hund von Wenckheim (who had accompanied
the Elector on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1493).

31 The capture took place in the late afternoon. Elector Frederick ( see

pp. 49 f.) entrusted this difficult task (see p. 201, n. 3; p. 209, n. 22) to

two of his most faithful servants, Hans von Berlepsch (a member of a noble

family residing in Saxony and Hesse since 1233), the castellan of the
Wartburg, ana Burckhard Hund von Wenckheim of Altenstein Castle (see

note 30); see WA, Br 2, 340, n. 29. Heading north for about fifteen miles

in the general direction of Eisenach, they took Luther on a crisscross ride
through the Thuringian Forest and filially reached the Wartburg near
Eisenach late at night; see p. 219.

82 According to the Rule of the Augustinians (see p. 20, n. 8), each
traveling friar had to be accompanied by at least one fellow-friar. John
Petzensteiner of Niimberg went with Luther to Worms. He had matric-
ulated in Wittenberg in 1507 and was graduated as Master of Arts in
1515. See WA, Br 2, 297, n. 9.

227

LETTERS

Here I was stripped of my own clothes and dressed in a
knights cloak. I am letting my hair and beard grow, so that
you would hardly know me; I can’t even recognize myself any
longer . 33 Now I am living in Christian liberty and am free of
all the laws of that tyrant . 84 I would have preferred of course that
that Hog of Dresden 35 had been considered worthy of killing me
while I preached in public, had it pleased God that I should
suffer for his Word. The will of the Lord be done.

Farewell and pray for me. Greet your whole court . 36

Written on the mountain , 37 May 14, 1521

Martin Luther

To Philip Melanchthon
Wartburg, May 26, 1521

Luther comments on his literary work (Against Latomus, the
Postil , On Confession , Exposition of Psalm 68), as well as on
Oecolampadius 9 book on confession, and praises the Passion, an
illustrated book about Christ’s life and sufferings which was pub-
lished in Wittenberg . He requests information about Francis
Faber and about the preaching situation in Wittenberg . After
discussing some news and rumors concerning both friends and
enemies, he tries to strengthen the faith of his friends in Witten-
berg and encourages them in their stand for the cause of the
gospel . He also assures them of his well-being . He closes with
greetings to many friends .

33 Lucas Cranach the Elder (see p. 201) portrayed Luther as a knight (see
p. 352, n. 13) and, indeed, the Reformer can hardly be recognized in this
picture. For the picture, see Schwiebert, Plate LV.

34 The context gives no clue to the identity of "that tyrant.” Perhaps
one can assume that Luther thought of the "yoke” of the pope (see above).

35 Duke George; see p. 110, n. 20; pp. 201, 216, 221.

86 Elector Frederick's court. This sentence is written in Greek.

87 The Wartburg was located on a high mountain since it was supposed to
serve as a lookout post for the protection of Thurginia (a district within
Electoral Saxony) against any possible invasion by an enemy from the
east or northeast

228

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 20, 1521

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 347-349.

To Philip Melanchthon, theologian, teacher of the congregation
at Wittenberg, my dearest brother in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. What I may have written in this letter which has
already long been sealed, 1 I have forgotten, my Philip, but I
wanted to answer your letter 2 for a second time. I am replying
to James Latomus 3 unwillingly, since I have already set my soul
on quiet studies, but I see it is necessary that I answer him myself.
In addition there is the disgust of having to read his verbose and
badly written stuff. I had decided to put the expositions of the
Epistles and Gospels into German, but you have not yet sent me
a copy of the Postil 4 I am sending the Psalm that was sung on these
days. 5 If you wish, and the presses are idle, you may have it
printed, and dedicated to whomever you wish. I have worked on
this in my leisure, since I have no books here. However, if you

1 An enclosure which is not extant

2 This letter is not extant; one may draw conclusions about its content
from Luther’s answer on pp. 232 ff.

3 James Masson of Cambron/Hainaut, also known by his Humanistic
name as James Latomus ( 1475P-1544), was Luther’s bitter opponent at
Louvain. He studied in Paris and Louvain and was graduated as Doctor
of Theology from the University of Louvain in 1519. Latomus had just
published a sharp defense of the condemnation of Luther’s teachings which
was issued by the University of Louvain (see p. 155, nn. 5, 6); for the
bibliography, see WA 8, 37 f. Luther completed his reply on June 20,
1521 (see WA 8, 128); it came off the press in late September and was
entitled: Rationis Latomianae . . . Lutheriana Confutatio ( Luthers Refutation
of Latomus * Argument or Against Latomus) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, 1521).
WA 8, 43 ff.; LW 32, 137 ff.

4 Luther is waiting for a desk copy of his Latin Advent Postil, the Enar-
rationes epistolarum et evangeliorum, quas postUlas vocant, which had been
published in Wittenberg by J. Griinenberg in March of 1521; see WA

7, 458 ff.; p. 152, n. 2. This Postil contained eight homilies on the pericopes
appointed for the four Advent Sundays: one for each Epistle text and one
for each Gospel text. For more details, see pp. 237 ff.

5 The Versicle of Ascension Day (May 9) ana the Introit of Pentecost (May
19) were both Ps. 68:18 (or, according to the Vulgate, 67:18). Luther
enclosed the manuscript of Deutsche Auslegung des 67 Psalms ( German
Exposition of Psalm 67) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg, August, 1521). WA

8, 1 ff.; LW 13, 3 ff.

229

LETTERS

prefer not to do this, then show this manuscript to friends and
let Christian Aurifaber 6 read it, or you may give it to Amsdorf . 7

I hope that Doctor Lupin had a blessed departure from this
life . 8 Would God grant that we ourselves did not have to live in
it! God’s wrath is so great— I contemplate it daily more and more,
since I have nothing else to do— that I doubt whether God will
save, besides the little ones, any adults from that kingdom of
Satan: so terribly has our God forsaken us! Yet [Lupins] death
moved me tremendously, since it reminded me of that word of
Isaiah: "The righteous man perishes, and there is no one who
ponders on it; and devout men are taken away, and no one reflects
upon it.” 9

I would like to know who that Francis Faber of Silesia 10 is
—that great hero. The play against the goat Emser gives enough
indication as to its chief authors . 11 I am delighted with the illus-
trated Passion ; 12 I see that John Schwertfeger 13 helped you compile
this work. Our Oecolampadius has anticipated the treatise on
confession by publishing quite an outspoken book on the ease of
confession ; 14 he will, of course, be a new vexation for the Anti-

6 Christian During, called Goldschmidt or Aurifaber (see p. 42, n. 8), who
among other things took an active part in Wittenberg’s publishing business.

7 Nicholas von Amsdorf; see p. 218.

8 Peter Lupin; see p. 168, n. 5. He died on May 1; see WA, Br 2, 350, n. 8.

9 Isa. 57:1.

10 Francis Faber of Neisse (1407-1565) was one of the most important
literary representatives of the Renaissance in Silesia. In 1520 he matriculated
in the University of Leipzig; while there he wrote a poem in defense
of Luther; for its bibliography, see WA, Br 2, 350, n. 10. Luther s attention
was called to it and he is now requesting detailed information.

11 A satire against Jerome Emser (see p. 137, n. 19), one of Luther’s enemies;
for its bibliography and a possible author, see WA, Br 2, 350, n. 11.

12 Passional Christi et Antichristi (The Passion of Christ and Antichrist)
(Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg, 1521). WA 9, 701 f. Luther was not the
author of this picture story of the life and works of Christ and the Anti-
christ (see p. 114, n. 16), but he was very interested in it and was often
consulted by its authors. Melanchthon probably wrote the text with the
help of John Schwertfeger (see note 13); Lucas Cranach (see p. 201)
contributed the pictures.

13 John Schwertfeger of Meissen, a member of the Law Faculty of Witten-
berg University.

14 For Luther’s projected book on confession, see p. 225. Oecolampadius wrote
Quod non sit onerosa Christianis confessio paradoxon ( That Confession Is
No Burden for Christians) (Augsburg: Grimm and Wirsung, April, 1521).
Luther received this little book through Spalatin; see pp. 253 f. John Oecolam-
padius (the Humanistic name of John Hussgen or Hausschein) of Weins-

230

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 20, 1521

christ 15 and his soldiers. If I did not hope that this little book was
or will be sent to you by Spalatin, I myself would send it, together
with the letter Hutten 16 has written against those skull-capped and
hooded jay-birds 17 at Worms. If I can, I myself shall add some-
thing in German on this subject . 18

I admire the newly-married man of Kemberg ; 10 he is afraid of
nothing and was in quite a hurry in these troubled times. May
the Lord guide him, and blend delights into his bitter herbs ; 20
this will be done even without my prayer.

berg/Palatinate ( 1482-1531 ) studied theology in Heidelberg, where he was
graduated as Master of Arts in 1503. As a student he came under the
influence of the Humanistic reform movement. After having traveled in
Italy and having been a tutor in Mainz, he was ordained and had a parish in
Weinsberg. From 1513 to 1515 he continued his studies at Tubingen and
Stuttgart, and became a member of the Melanchthon-Reuchlin circle. In
1515/16 he was in Basel assisting Erasmus in the work on the Greek
text of the New Testament. Upon Capito’s (see p. 305, n. 2) recommendation,
Oecolampadius was called to Augsburg as cathedral preacher in 1518; there
he became acquainted with Luther during the latter s visit to Augsburg in
the fall of 1518 (see p. 83). In order to have quiet for establishing a stand
on Luther's ideas, Oecolampadius withdrew from Augsburg and went to
St. Brigit’s monastery in Altomiinster. Here he wrote his work on con-
fession (mentioned above), in which he endorsed the Reformation. As a
result he was forced to leave Altomiinster. After a short stay at von
Sickingen’s castle (see pp. 244 f.), he went to Basel in 1522 and found
work there in the publishing house of Cratander (which was then engaged
in a large project of editing patristic texts). He began to conduct biblical
lectures and soon gained the support of the Basel city council and was
appointed professor at the University. In 1525 he was appointed Haupt -
leutpriester (main preacher) at St. Martin’s Church. In that position he
successfully established the Reformation in Basel. Oecolampadius’ theological
thinking was deeply influenced by Erasmus; on the way in which the
new ideas ought to be put into action, however, he differed from the
great Humanist, and they clashed on various occasions. Although Oeco-
lampadius admired Luther, he sided with Zwingli and became one of the
fathers of the “Reformed” branch of the Reformation. See O.D.C.C., p. 976.

15 See p. 114, n. 10.

16 Ulrich von Hutten; see p. 163, n. 1. Luther is referring to von Hutten’s
open letter to the cardinals and bishops assembled in Worms to fight
Luther; see Booking 2, 21 ff. Spalatin must have sent a copy of this letter
to the Wartburg.

17 The cardinals; literally; “hoopoes,” i.e., Old World birds with fanlike
crests on their heads.

18 I.e., on confession; see p. 225; p. 246, n. 10.

10 Bartholomew Bemhardi of Feldldrch, once president of the University of
Wittenberg (see p. 115, n. 21), had resigned his University position and
taken up residence in Kemberg (see p. 142, n. 2). He had just recently
married; see WA, Br 2, 350, n. 16.

20 Exod. 12:8.

231

LETTERS

I am annoyed that not a single copy of your Loci 21 — so far
as it is printed— has arrived here.

I would like to know who fills my pulpit . 22 Is Amsdorf still
snoring and lazy? Also, what is Doctor Karlstadt doing ? 23 May
the Lord guard and strengthen you in what you write concerning
the prosperity of the University. Amen.

I definitely do not want you all to worry about me in any
way. As far as I am concerned, all is well, except that the troubles
of my soul have not yet ceased, and the former weakness of the
spirit and faith persists . 24 My life in seclusion 25 means nothing.
Since I never was engaged in the exposition of the Word by my
own volition , 26 I am now excluded from it with great peace of
heart. That is the state of affairs as far as I personally am con-
cerned. However, for the glory of the Word and for the strength-
ening of others and in turn for my own strengthening, I would
rather bum among glowing coals than rot here alone half alive—
may God grant, not dead. But who knows whether Christ does
not wish to accomplish more by this plan, not only in my case
but also in all others ? 27 We spoke so many times of faith and
hope for the things not seen! 28 Come on, let’s test at least once
a small part of [Christ’s] teaching, since things have come to
pass this way at the call of God and not through our doing. Even
though I should perish, the gospel will not lose anything. You
surpass me now [in teaching the gospel] and succeed me as Elisha
followed Elijah 29 with a double portion of Spirit— which may the
Lord Jesus graciously bestow upon you. Amen.

21 Melanchthon’s Loci communes rerum theologicarum (Wittenberg: M.
Lotther, 1521; the printing began in April and was completed in December).
C. R. 21, 81 ff.; Melanchthon , Studienausgabe, 2, I, 3 ff.; C. L. Hill, The Loci
Communes of Philip Melanchthon (Boston, 1944). This work was the first
systematic presentation of Reformation doctrine; see O.D.C.C., p. 882.

22 Luther wrote suggestum , which can mean either the academic chair or
the pulpit; see p. 221, n. 8.

28 Andrew Karlstadt; see d. 79, n. 12. This sentence is missing in one of
the manuscript copies ana in some of the printed editions.

24 For similar statements, see p. 28, n. 10. For “. . . of my soul" the manu-
script copies have ani, i.e., [troubles with my] constipation; see p. 217,
n. 15.

25 This part of the sentence is in Greek.

26 See p. 6, n. 5.

27 For a similar statement, see p. 213.

28 Heb. 11:1. 28 II Kings 2:9.

232

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 26, 1521

Therefore, all of you, do not be downcast but sing the Lords
hymn which is appointed for the night . 30 I will sing too; and
so let us be anxious only for the Word. Who is ignorant, let him
be ignorant; who perishes may perish, only as long as they cannot
complain that we have not done our duty toward them. Let the
Leipzig people boast, for this is their hour . 31 We must go out of
our country, away from our kindred and from our fathers house,
and must be separated from each other for a while, and go into a
land that we do not know . 32 Meanwhile let them worship their
idol 33 and brag about it.

It is enough for the little James of Flanders 34 to visit you;
just take care that he does not become too cocky if he gets all
he wants . 36

I have not abandoned the hope of returning to you, only God
must do what is good in his eyes . 36 If the Pope will take steps
against all who think as I do, then Germany will not be without
uproar. The faster he undertakes this, the faster he and his fol-
lowers will perish and I shall return. God is arousing the spirits
of many, especially the hearts of the common people. It does
not seem to me likely that this affair can be checked with force;
if [the Pope] begins to put it down, it will become ten times
bigger. Germany has very many Karsthansen . 3T

30 p s . 42:8.

31 Luke 22:53. The Faculty of the University of Leipzig had been bitterly
opposed to Luther since the days of the disputation; see p. 63, n. 24;
p. 134, n. 3.

32 Gen. 12:1; Heb. 11:8.

33 The manuscript copies of the letter have “N.N.” which stands for non
nominatus, or “not named.” Either Luther did not write the proper name
in the original, or the copyist purposely omitted it. Luther was perhaps
thinking of Duke George (see p. 110, n. 20) or John Eck, the "victor” of
the Leipzig Disputation (see p. 134, n. 3).

34 James Propst of Ypres, Flemish Augustinian and prior of the monastery
at Antwerp, was an early follower of Luther and sometime in 1519 or
1520 went to Wittenberg to study. He was graduated as Bachelor in
Biblical Studies from Wittenberg University in May, 1521, and as Licentiate
of Theology in July, 1521. Having returned to the Netherlands, he was
active in spreading the Reformation, for which he was arrested and forced
to recant. After escaping from the Netherlands, he again professed the
Reformation, and in 1524 became a pastor at Bremen, a position he held
until his death on June 30, 1562. S-J 1, 351, n. 3; 2, 36, n. 5.

35 What Luther meant here is not clear.

36 1 Sam. 3:18.

37 Some of the older printed editions omit "very,” which can be found in

233

LETTERS

Mumer is silent . 38 What the Goat 39 will do I do not know;
perhaps he will be a second Ortwin . 40

I cannot believe what you write, that you are going astray
without a shepherd . 41 This would be the saddest and bitterest of
news. As long as you, Amsdorf, and the others are there, you are
not without a shepherd. Don’t talk that way, lest God be angered,
and we be found guilty of ingratitude. Would that all the churches,
at least the collegiate churches , 42 had one-fourth of your share of
the Word and its ministers! Thank the Lord who has enlightened
you. Look how verbose I have been!

One says the Cardinal of Mainz has eighteen hundred sworn
enemies , 43 and that Lord Chievres 44 suffers from heavy fever;
others say he died. A certain bishop, especially hostile to Luther,
has fallen— that is, he has died at Worms . 45 I have no more news,
since I am a hermit, an anchorite, and truly a monk, though neither
shaved nor cowled. You would see a knight and hardly recognize
me . 46

the manuscript copies of this letter. Karsthans was the common name
for the German peasant who opposed the pressure of the clergy, especially
their tax demands. It was also the title of a little book against Mumer
(see note 38), published in Strassburg by J. Priiss in 1521, which set
forth the grievances of the peasants. For detailed information on this
little book, see WA, Br 2, 351, n. 35.

38 Thomas Mumer; see p. 194, n. 16. Since his attack on Luthers To the
Christian Nobility of the German Nation and Luther's reply, Mumer had
been silent.

30 Jerome Emser; see p. 137, n. 19.

40 Ortwin Gratius; see p. 9, n. 2.

41 Matt. 9:36.

42 Churches with more than one clergyman in residence, which were not,
however, bishops' churches.

43 Cardinal Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz; see pp. 44 f. During the
night of April 19/20, 1521, a proclamation was nailed to the door of the city
hall in Worms; in this proclamation four hundred nobles, “who had sworn
not to abandon the just Luther,” declared their enmity toward all sovereigns
and Romanists who persecuted Luther, especially the Archbishop of Mainz;
see WA, Br 2, 351, n. 42.

44 William de Croy, lord of Chievres, was governor of the Netherlands and
one of the guardians of Charles V during the Emperor's minority. He was
one of the most influential persons surrounding the Emperor. He died May
27; see p. 255.

45 Aloisius Marlianus, bishop of Tuy, who had published an oration against
Luther early in 1521, died during the night of May 10/11; see WA, Br 2, 351,
n. 44; S-J 1, 421, n. 1; 2, 37, n. 2. The source for this news could not be
established; perhaps it was Spalatin, or someone at the Wartburg.

46 See p. 228.

234

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 20, 1521

Tell Amsdorf that the pastor of Hersfeld , 41 an excellent man,
has also taken a wife, as the rumor goes, so that you are not the
only ones to have a newly-wed provost . 48 Also tell him to bear
patiently the fact that this man has been preferred to him as the
replacement for Peter Lupin . 49 Oh, children of man! But it is good
that his 50 upright and bold spirit caused him such great loss,
while the different spirit of the other caused the latter such great
gain! 51 Our merits are hidden but divided; yet the rewards make
manifest the thoughts of the heart. I fear that the Provost of
Kemberg 52 might be expelled, and that then two stomachs would
suffer want, and all who may come from them . 53 But if he has
faith [he need not worry]; the Lord lives and he is the shepherd
of all, and he does not allow even the birds to starve . 54 Please
greet him and encourage him. I want you and all to rejoice and
glory [in the Lord], I cannot tell you how much you would all
gratify me by doing this, and how you would also please God and
scorch Satan and his armor. Your sadness is my greatest mis-
fortune, while your gladness is also mine. And so farewell in the
Lord, to whom you will commend me, I am sure; as much as
I am able, I shall also remember you [in my prayers]. Keep watch
over the church of the Lord, in which the Holy Spirit has appointed
you as bishops 55 and not mere imitations of bishops.

47 Luther must have heard of this while he was in Hersfeld; see pp. 225 f.
The pastor in question was a certain Henry Fuchs; see WA , Br 2, 351, n. 45;
S-J 2, 37, n. 3.

48 It is not clear who this provost was. The reference newly-wed suggests,
however, that Luther is thinking of Bartholomew Bemhardi; see note 19 and
Luther’s statements below.

49 See note 8.

50 Amsdorf s.

51 The background of this statement could not be clarified; for possibilities,
see WA, Br 2, 351, n. 47. It is clear, however, that the "provost” was supposed
to replace Lupin, who had died on May 1; perhaps one can also assume that
the “provost” was preferred to von Amsdorf as the replacement for Lupin’s
office. But which office? It must have been either at the University or the All
Saints’ Chapter.

52 See notes 19, 48.

53 1.e., the Provost himself, his wife, and any children they might have.
The expulsion was to be expected because a priest who married was defying
the existing laws. Luther’s fear soon became a reality; see p. 342.

34 Matt. 6:26.

55 Or overseers, guardians; Acts 20:28.

235

LETTERS

Please greet all in my name ( except the Master of Eisleben 56
and that fat little [Flemish] flame 57 — to these I write directly ), 58
for there are many of you: John Schwertfeger , 59 Peter Swawe , 60
and the whole "church in your house ,” 61 Henry of Zlitphen , 62
and all the friars (I have written to the Prior ), 68 Master Lucas,
the painter , 64 Christian Goldschmidt , 65 Doctor Esch , 66 and all who
come to your mind. You must as a matter of necessity take care
of these greetings . 67

Again, farewell.

In the land of the birds that sing sweetly in the branches and
praise God with all their power night and day, Sunday, May
26, 1521

Yours,

Martin 68

56 John Agricola; see p. 220.

57 James Propst; see note 34.

58 The letters are apparently not extant.

59 See note 13.

60 Peter Swawe (1496-1552), a noble of Pomerania, had studied at the uni-
versities of Louvain and Leipzig and in 1519 or 1520 went to Wittenberg to
continue his studies. He accompanied Luther to Worms (see p. 227, n. 27).
In the fall of 1521 he returned to Pomerania and from 1526 until his death
was in the diplomatic service of Denmark; see WA, Br 2, 352, n. 54.

61 1 Cor. 16:19. This is a reference to the students, professors, and towns-
people who assembled in Melanchthon’s home every Sunday to listen to him
lecture. It seems that Melanchthon lectured on Genesis in 1521/22; see WA,
Br 8, 661.

62 See p. 31, n. 21. He had left Wittenberg in 1514 and became sub-prior
in the Augustinian monastery at Cologne (see p. 31). In 1516 he was
made prior of the Dordrecht monastery. Persecuted for his open support of
the Reformation, he left Dordrecht and went again to Wittenberg. He was
graduated from Wittenberg University in 1521 as Bachelor in Biblical Studies,
and he then returned to Antwerp. He was imprisoned there, but he was
freed due to an uprising of the people. Then he went to Bremen, where
he preached the gospel and promoted the Reformation until November, 1524,
when he went on to Meldorf. On December 9 he was seized by a mob
inspired by priests faithful to Rome, and on December 10, 1524, he was put
to death. See also LW 32, 263 ff.

83 Conrad Helt; see p. 125, n. 9. The letter is not extant.

64 Lucas Cranach; see p. 201.

65 See note 6.

66 Thomas Eschaus; see p. 168, n. 6.

87 One of the manuscript copies of this letter and some of the printed editions
have a text which S-J 2, 38, translates: “See what shameful paper I have
had to use for you.”

88 The signature is written in Greek.

236

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 28, 1521
Excursus

As soon as Luther was settled in the Wartburg, he decided to complete
his original intention (see p. 152, n. 2) to continue writing homilies
on the Epistles and Gospels appointed for the Sundays and festival
days of the church year; see p. 225. To begin his work, he asked his
friends in Wittenberg, on May 14, to send to him a copy of the Latin
Advent Postil, along with other materials; see p. 225 (perhaps also pp.
218 f. [May 12]); he waited in vain however; see pp. 229, 254. In the
interim Luther continued to work on the Psalms; see p. 225; p. 229, n. 5;
p. 252, n. 11; p. 121, n. 7; he also wrote the treatise On Confession; see
p. 246, n. 10. Luther also must have re-evaluated his work on the
Postil and decided on a major change, for on May 26 he announced to
Melanchthon that he would publish a German Postil . It must have been
his intention to begin by translating the Latin Advent Postil, when the
copy finally came; see p. 229. His friends in Wittenberg could not find
his personal copy, however, which he apparently had entrusted to some-
one who misplaced it. By June 10 he still had not received it; see p. 254.

Perhaps tired of waiting, Luther made a second change in his
plans. At the end of May or the beginning of June he began working
on the homilies (in German) for the pericopes of the Christmas season.
Apparently he first wanted to finish the hard work of writing new
homilies, and thus make good use of the time while awaiting the Latin
Advent Postil. By June 10 he had already completed the sermon on
the Epistle for Christmas Eve (Titus 2:11-14); see pp. 254 f.; WA 10 1 * a ,
xlh f. Luther must have worked hard on this first of the new series of
German homilies; he realized that in this German Christmas series the
homilies would be more detailed than in the (still untranslated) Latin
Advent Postil. To speed his work, he asked Spalatin on June 10 for a
certain Shorter Postil, among other things (see p. 254) which cannot
be further identified. It can be assumed, however, that it was a manu-
script in Luther’s handwriting, which probably contained notes and
outlines for sermons he had preached or had intended to preach; see
p. 321, n. 31; WA 10i> 2 , lxh {.; WA, Br 2, 355, n. 7.

At the beginning of July, Luther’s working capacity was greatly
hindered by his illness; see pp. 255, 257, 270. Spalatin sent a strong
medication, which gave Luther some relief (see p. 268), and between
July 10 and 15 Luther’s health improved; about July 13 he was able
to resume his work; see pp. 257 f., 270. Soon after July 15 he sent some
"other things” to Spalatin (see p. 271), and on July 31 he sent the
"rest” of his Postil manuscript to Spalatin, asking that the publisher give
it special attention (see p. 276). Since we do not hear of any previous
shipment of Postil manuscripts which would justify Luther’s statement
that he was sending the "rest” of it, it is safe to assume (with the WA,
Br editor) that the "other things” (which Luther forwarded to Spalatin
soon after July 15) were manuscripts of the newly written German

237

LETTERS

homilies on the pericopes of the Christmas season. Among these might
have been the one on Titus 2:11-14, mentioned by Luther in his June
10 letter to Spalatin (see above).

In the July 31 letter to Spalatin (accompanying the “rest” of the
Postil manuscript) , Luther expressed some ideas concerning the final form
of the Postil which show that he had changed his mind a third time. The
homilies on the pericopes of the Advent and Christmas seasons were to
have come out in one volume. He must have realized that it would be
awkward if the homilies for the Advent Sundays followed those for the
Christmas season, which obviously would have been the case had he
continued to finish the homilies for the Christmas season before con-
centrating on those for the Advent season. Therefore he decided to
move the homilies for the four Advent Sundays to the beginning of
the book, where they should have been anyway, according to his
original plan (see p. 229; p. 152, n. 2); this plan could not have been
put to work, since his friends in Wittenberg did not send a copy of
the Latin Advent Postil . On July 31 Luther envisioned publishing one
volume of German homilies on the pericopes of the Advent and Christ-
mas seasons. In this book he intended to give the people something
from which they could learn about Christ “in the meantime,” i.e., until
a Postil covering the entire church year could be completed; see p. 276;
WA 10 1 * 2 , XLvm.

Spalatin must have immediately made the necessary arrangements
with die publishing house of J. Griinenberg in Wittenberg. He also
must have complained to Luther about the slowness of the printers in
general. As a result, on August 3 Luther admonished Melanchthon to
hurry the printers, but also to take great care that the Postil be well
printed; see p. 288. On August 15 Luther was of the opinion that the
printing of the Postil had begun; whether Griinenberg had already
started the typesetting could not be established. Since Luther was
unhappy with Griinenberg^ work on another of his books, he wanted
to stop the printing on August 15. Yet in spite of this he gave permis-
sion for the work to continue; see pp. 292 f., 296.

Luther made, however, a final change in the arrangement of the
homilies. The Postil, he decided, was to be divided into four major
parts, one for each quarter of the church year. In the following months
Luther completed the Postil manuscript. On November 19 he signed
the letter which prefaced the Christinas Postil and dedicated it to
Count Albrecht of Mansfeld. Luther also urged Spalatin to keep this
letter in his care until he completed the Postil, a task on which he
was then working; see p. 337. This is obviously a reference to the
Advent portion of the Postil; see WA 10 1 * 2 , 1 ff. The last homily was
completed during the latter part of February, 1522; see WA 10 1 ’ 2 ,
Lvm. In March, 1522 (see WA 10 1 * 2 , Lxn), J. Griinenberg released a
(Wartburg) Postil (WA 10 1 * 1 , 1 ff.), the so-called Christmas Postil;

238

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 20, 1521

it made available German homilies on the pericopes of the Sundays
and festival days of the Christmas season. In April, 1522, another
(Wartburg) Postil was released (WA 10 1 * 2 , 1 ff.), which was the so-
called Advent Postil; it made available German homilies on the pericopes
of the Advent Sundays.

Luthers statements concerning the Postil in his letters of 1521
cause problems which need further investigation if the text of the letters
is to be clear. How can one explain the fact that Luther abandoned
his May 26 idea of presenting a German Postil covering the pericopes
of the Advent and Christmas seasons, yet took it up again on July 31?
Why, when the work was finally completed, did the Advent Postil
follow the Christmas Postil? When did Luther abandon the idea of
translating the Advent homilies? These are but a few of the questions
raised by Luther's statements. To these must be added the ambiguities
in the statements themselves.

W. Kohler, the chief editor of the Wartburg Postil in the WA, has
given a careful analysis of the development of this work; see WA 10 1 * 2 ,
xli ff. The first change in Luther's plans— that which he announced
to Melanchthon on May 26 (see p. 229)— needs no further explanation,
if one considers Luther's great concern for the laity; see, e.g., p. 113,
n. 10. The second change in Luther's plans, which took place before
June 10, is understandable when one realizes that Luther did not have
the Latin Advent Postil available. The development of Luther's work
up to July 13 is therefore clear. On this day, however, having just
resumed his work, he intended to send a Postil manuscript to Melanch-
thon as soon as he had finished “ten”; see p. 258. Contrary to the
opinion of the WA, Br editor (see WA, Br 2, 360, n. 10), this editor
assumes with Kohler (see WA 10 1 * 2 , xnvn) that these “ten” refer to
the ten Sundays and festival days between the first Advent Sunday and
Epiphany: four Advent Sundays, Christmas Day, the days of St. Stephen
and St. John, the Sunday after Christmas, New Year's Day, and
Epiphany. Counting all the Epistles and Gospels, this would have been
twenty-four homilies: six on the (three) Epistle and (three) Gospel
pericopes appointed for the different services on Christmas; nine on
the Epistles; and nine on the Gospels appointed as texts for the other
Sundays and festival days. Luther wanted to send a complete manu-
script as soon as it was finished. He envisioned a German Advent -
Christmas Postil , which would fulfil his intention of May 26 (see p. 229).
The second change was, therefore, only a technical one due to Luther's
lack of an Advent Postil. While waiting for it, Luther began working on
the new homilies for the Christmas season, perhaps hoping that he could
finish the homilies for the Advent season once he received the Advent
Postil. Did he still intend to translate the Advent homilies? This ques-
tion has to remain unanswered for the time being.

On July 31 Luther forwarded to Spalatin the “rest” of the Postil

239

LETTERS

manuscript and promised to hurry the work on “ten of the Gospels";
see p. 276. Kohler assumed that Luther here referred once more to all
the sermons for the ten Sundays and festival days of the Advent and
Christmas seasons; see WA 10 1 * 2 , xlvii f. But why did Luther point out
especially that he would hurry the work on “ten of the Gospels ”?
Kohler overlooked this fact In addition if Luther had maintained his
intention of July 13 of not sending anything to the press until the
manuscript was entirely finished, i.e., until all twenty-four sermons for
the ten Sundays and festival days were completed, then the manuscript
would necessarily have been completed with the shipment of July 31. No
further hurry would have been necessary. Kohler circumvents this dif-
ficulty by suggesting that Luther forwarded the rest of the finished manu-
script, i.e., whatever Luther had finished. The shipment of July 15 (see
p. 271) can be discounted, since it could hardly have been die fulfilment
of the promise made on July 13 (see p. 258), for Luther had then
just resumed work after a long involuntary pause (see p. 257). It
cannot definitely be shown why Luther sent anything on July 15, nor
what he sent; see above. The “ten of the Gospels” which, on July
31, Luther promised to write in a hurry have to refer to something
other than the “ten” mentioned by Luther on July 13; see pp. 258, 276.
To what, then, do they refer? This editor suggests that they refer to
ten homilies on the Gospel pericopes (hence “ten of the Gospels”) of
the Advent and Christmas seasons. As on July 13, so on July 31 Luther
envisioned one Postil covering the Advent and Christmas seasons, and
promised to hurry ten Gospel sermons for this Postil .

This assumption is supported by the following analysis: On July
31 Luther wanted to move the homilies for the four Advent Sundays
to the beginning of the whole work and add the rest; see p. 276.
On July 31 he also anticipated hurriedly finishing “ten of the Gospels.”
The texts for the Sundays and festival days from Christmas to Epiphany
included only eight Gospel pericopes. Even if one assumes that on
July 31 Luther had not yet begun any of the homilies on the Gospel
pericopes of the Christmas season, it is obvious that he had then
already included two of the four Advent Gospels in his working plans.
(If he had already finished two of the homilies on the Gospel pericopes
of the Christmas season— which may be assumed if one considers that
Luther had been working on the Christmas series since before June
10 [see pp. 254 f.] and had already sent some manuscripts to Spalatin
[see p. 271] and thus could easily have completed some of the
homilies on the Gospel pericopes of the Christmas season— then, on
July 31, he would have included the work on all four Advent Gospel
pericopes in his plans.)

The problem thus is now: Did Luther, on July 31, still intend
to translate the homilies for the Advent season from the Latin Advent
Postil? Or had he at this point already decided to write new homilies

240

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 26, 1521

for the Advent season, as he did for the Christmas season? Kohler
stated that the date on which Luther decided to give up his intention
of translating cannot definitely be established; he believed that this
took place sometime after November 22 when Luther had completed
the work on the homilies for the Christmas season and had begun to
work on the Advent Postil; see p. 337; W A 10 1 * 2 , liv. This seems
open to question. If on July 31 Luther still had the idea of trans-
lating the Advent homilies, why did he not say so? See p. 276. It
seems to this editor that Luther considered the “ten of the Gospels”
to be one task to be undertaken and not two, namely, translating
(from the Advent Postil) and writing new homilies (for the Christmas
season). If the Advent sermons had only to be translated, Luther
would not have had to make a major change in the organization of
the Postil on August 15 (that is, to divide the Postil into four parts
which were supposed to be published separately; see p. 297). This
change was obviously due to the fact that all the Advent homilies
were not yet available. It seems to this editor that Luther had decided
to abandon the idea of translating the Advent homilies at least as
early as July 31. And some material of the Advent homilies must
have been available on August 15, at least on the Gospel pericopes,
according to Luthers promise made on July 31 (an assumption which
is contrary to Kohler, whose argumentation is not convincing; see WA
10 1 - 2 , liv ff.). This is obvious if one looks more closely at Luthers
statements in his July 31 letter to Spalatin; see p. 276. Luther speaks
there of moving the homilies for the four (Advent) Sundays to the
front of the book. Of course this could still have been only a thought
and should be understood as meaning he would do it once he got
around to translating the homilies. However it is certain that on July
31 Luther had already included in his work plans the writing of at
least two new Advent homilies on the Gospel pericopes, and perhaps
had actually begun work on them, and that he sent some of diem to
Wittenberg, either between July 31 and August 14 (perhaps on August
6; see p. 290), or was about to send them on August 15 (see pp. 292 f.).
This statement can be supported if one considers that Luther, in
his August 15 letter, requested that the manuscripts be kept safely,
or even returned to him, yet in the same letter gave the green light
for the continuation of the printing of the Postil manuscripts he had
sent, and the printing of die ten big sheets he included; see pp.
293 f., 296. Which manuscripts were to be printed? Which were to
be kept safely? The only possible answer is that the manuscripts of
the Christmas Postil could be printed, while those of the Advent
homilies were to be kept. That these manuscripts of the Advent sec-
tion contained the new Advent homilies can be seen from the
fact that Luther would not have had to omit the Advent homilies if
they were only to be translated; this he certainly could have done in

241

LETTERS

a short time. But to write new homilies for all the Advent pericopes
was a task Luther realized could not be done— at least not as quickly
as Luther thought it should be. Since he had had longer to work
on the homilies for the Christmas season, they were to be printed
first, while those for the Advent season were to be temporarily post-
poned. This would explain the final major change: Luther's decision
on August 15 to publish the Postil in four parts, beginning with the
Christmas Postil .

In considering the arrangement of the Postil between June 10 and
July 31, Luther must have decided not to translate the Advent
homilies. The date on which he gave up the idea of translating the
Advent homilies must have been around July 15, the time when per-
haps he finally received a copy of the Latin Advent Postil. Following
Luther's June 10 complaint to Spalatin (see p. 254) that friends in
Wittenberg had not yet sent it, and the request in the same letter
for the Shorter Postil, Spalatin must have written to Melanchthon,
for on July 6 Melanchthon sent, “as requested,” the Shorter Postil to
Spalatin for forwarding to Luther; see C.R. 1, 417. On July 15
Luther announced to Spalatin that he had finally received “everything”;
see p. 288. Perhaps it can be assumed that “everything” included the
Shorter Postil and perhaps also the Advent Postil, since Luther from
that day on no longer complained of not having them; see WA, Br
2, 365, n. 1. Resuming his work on the Postil by July 13 (see pp.
257 f.), Luther must have soon examined the material that had
arrived from Wittenberg and realized that the Latin Advent homilies
would be no match for the already completed German Christmas
homilies (see pp. 254 f.) and as a result must then have decided to
write new Advent homilies. He had made up his mind to write such
Advent homilies (at least for the Gospels) by July 31. Perhaps he
actually had begun working on them; if not, he at least included them
in his plans on July 31 (see above). It was on July 31 that he hoped
“soon” to send ten Gospel homilies— that is, either all Gospel homilies
for the Christmas season and a first instalment of two Advent Gospel
homilies, or whichever Gospel homilies for the Christmas season were
still missing and, depending on this number, more Advent Gospel
homilies. Soon Luther was of the opinion that Griinenberg had begun
printing the material he had sent to him on July 15 and 31. Although
Luther had written ten big manuscript pages between July 31 and
August 15 (see p. 293), he realized that the press would be too much
delayed should it have to wait until all the new Advent homilies for
his Advent-Christmas Postil were available. Since all of the new Advent
sermons were not available, nor was Luther anywhere close to having
them completed, he decided to eliminate them for the time being and
divide the Postil into four parts, beginning with the homilies for the
Christmas season, a part of which he believed to be already set in

242

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, MAY 28, 1521

type. The publication of the Advent homilies (of which Spalatin was
supposed to keep or return to the Wartburg whatever Luther had
forwarded to Wittenberg; see p. 297) was to conclude the Postil, which
eventually was to cover the entire year from Christmas to Christmas.

In the following months Luther began to meditate on some of
the Gospel pericopes of the Trinity season. This resulted in the
exposition of the Gospel of the ten lepers; see p. 314, n. 9. The
first task Luther took up, however, after finishing the Christmas part
of the Postil, was the writing of the rest of the Advent homilies. For
him the Wartburg Postil was at all times one unit. Therefore on
November 22, when he sent Spalatin the letter of dedication of the
Postil, Luther urged him to keep this letter in his care until he com-
pleted the whole work; see p. 337. All changes in the arrangement
of the Postil and in Luther's working procedure were due to technical
difficulties or shortage of time. In the last homily of the Christmas
series (which was finished in November) Luther again spoke of the
twenty-four sermons (see WA 10 1 * 1 , 728) which were to cover the
pericopes appointed for the Sundays and festival days of Advent and
Christmas. Perhaps he thought that the Advent portion could precede
the Christmas series when bound, or that the release of the Christmas
portion could be delayed until the Advent homilies had been com-
pleted; see pp. 237 f. Yet the work on the Advent homilies must have
taken up more of Luther's time than he anticipated, while the printers
must have completed the Christmas portion more quickly than he
had expected. Therefore the printing of the Advent series was com-
pleted about six weeks after the Christmas series had appeared on
the market.

To sum up, Luther’s work on the Wartburg Postil, as reflected
in his correspondence of 1521, must be reconstructed as follows: On
May 26 Luther announced to Melanchthon that he would bring out
a German Postil, which was to begin with the Advent homilies trans-
lated from the Latin Advent Postil. Due to the lack of his Latin
Advent Postil he changed his mind by June 10. He began work on
the homilies for the Christmas season, postponing the translating. By
July 31 he again took up his first plan to begin the Postil with the
Advent homilies. By now, however, he had also decided to write new
Advent homilies, at least for the Gospel texts; he hoped he could
soon send ten Gospel homilies, among which there must have been
at least two for the Advent season. Since on August 15 Luther was
of the opinion that the printing had already begun, and since he
was pressured for time, he finally eliminated the Advent portion, at
least temporarily. He was never able to catch up, however, and the
Advent homilies eventually had to come out after those of the Christmas
season.

243

LETTERS

To Francis von Sickingen
Wartburg, June 1, 1521

In the days before the Diet of Worms, Luther had approached
von Sickingen, perhaps in connection with his appeal to the Em-
peror (see p. 174, n. 6). In this letter which prefaces the treatise
On Confession, Luther dedicates this treatise to von Sickingen .

Francis von Sickingen (1481-1523) was a powerful member
of the Estate of Knights . This Estate, once the most important
of the Empire, gradually lost its political, military, and cultural
position during the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries
and was replaced by the mercenary armies and the ecclesiastical
and secular territorial sovereigns. The Reformation, with its theo-
logical opposition to Rome, seemed to the knights to be a last
anchor. They considered the Reformation a chance to reorganize
the social structure of the Empire by cutting down the importance
and influence of the territorial sovereigns, especially the ecclesi-
astical ones. In addition they hoped that a general intellectual
uprising of the German nation might free the Empire from the
thumb of the papacy. Before and after the Diet of Worms , von
Sickingen offered asylum to Luther, an offer the Reformer never
accepted.

After the Diet of Worms the knights became increasingly
restless (see, e.g., p. 231, n. 16), and led by von Sickingen, they
finally staged an uprising against the Archbishop of Trier in
1522/23. The campaign ended in a catastrophe for the knights.
While defending his Castle Landstuhl against the troops of the
Archbishop of Trier, which outnumbered his own by far, von
Sickingen was mortally wounded and capitulated shortly before
his death. With him died the romantic hopes of the whole Estate
of Knights for the re-establishment of their former status. Von
Sickingen s uprising has to be seen against the background of his
political and economic ambition to secularize the wealth of the
church, an honest enthusiasm for Luther and his work (chiefly
because of Luther 9 s anti-papal tendencies), a desire to elevate the

244

TO FRANCIS VON SICKINGEN, JUNE 1, 1521

Estate of Knights to a position equal to the territorial sovereigns ,
and a nationalism which opposed the interference of Rome and
its willing servants in the Empire , the ecclesiastical sovereigns .

Text in German: WA 8, 138-140 , which is based on a printed
version (thus there is no signature); translation based on S-J 2 ,
39-41.

To the brave and honorable Francis von Sickingen,
my special lord and patron— from Martin Luther
God's grace and peace in Christ our Lord

Brave Sir: We read in the Book of Joshua that when God led
the people of Israel into the promised land of Canaan and smote
all the people of that land, namely, thirty-one kings and all their
cities, there was no city humble enough to ask for peace except
Gibeon, though Israel had a command from God to offer and
accept terms of peace. In their presumption they were all hard-
ened, and fought against Israel, so that it is written in the 11th
chapter [: 19-20] of said book: 1 “There was no city that sur-
rendered itself peacefully to the people of Israel except Gibeon;
but they were all conquered in battle. For it was determined
by the Lord that they should obstinately and boldly fight against
Israel, and thereby be destroyed and find no grace."

It seems to me that this history is meant to set an example
for our popes, bishops, scholars, and other spiritual tyrants, who
clearly see and understand that people know their affairs and
are tired of them, and that the bright light is in many ways and
many places uncovering their deceitful and seducing ways, so
that every cover is becoming too short and too narrow for them.
Yet they neither humble themselves nor sue for peace; indeed,
when peace is offered them they refuse it; they screw up their
courage and undertake to quench the light by force, and remain
what they are, thinking they are so securely in the saddle that
no one can unhorse them. I am afraid that here also 2 it is God's
doing that they are hardened in their hearts, give no thought to
humility, and do not consider peace, so that at last they, too,
must perish without any mercy.

1 Luther wrote 10th chapter by mistake.

2 As was the case with the Canaanites.

245

LETTERS

They blame me for it all, yet they know very well how proudly
they have hitherto despised the poor man. I have often offered
peace, even cried out for it and run to meet it . 3 I have declared
my readiness to answer charges, have held disputations , 4 and have
now appeared at two diets . 5 This has not helped me at all. I have
not met with justice but with open wickedness and force; I have
been commanded simply to recant and threatened with all sorts
of misfortune. .Ah, well, if the hour comes when they, too, shall
vainly cry for peace, I hope they will remember what they are
now earning! I can do nothing more; I have been pushed off the
field; they now have time to change what people neither can,
nor ought to, nor will endure from them. If they do not change
it, someone else will change it without their consent; he will
not teach them with letters and words, as Luther has, but with
deeds. Thanks and praise be to God, there is now less fear and
dread of the bugaboo at Rome, and the chapter Si quis suadente 6
will no longer bewitch the people; the world can now break the
spell . 7

In order to demonstrate that I am not idle in this wilderness
and in my Patmos , 8 I, too, have written a Revelation for myself
and will share it with all who desire it. I am herewith sending
it to Your Honor to show my good will and gratitude for the
many encouragements and offers 9 you have given to me, an un-
worthy person. It is a sermon On Confession , 10 which I wrote
for the following reason: this last Lent I issued a mild instruction

3 See p. 83; p. 178, n. 4.

4 See, e.g., p. 126.

6 Augsburg, 1518 (see pp. 83 ff.), and Worms, 1521 (see pp. 197 ff.).

6 This is a reference to a decretal issued by Pope Clement V during the
Council of Vienne (1311/12) concerning the punishment of crimes against
members of the hierarchy. See Clementinae V, tit. VIII, cap. 1. CIC 2,
1187 f.; see also Decreti II, causa XVII, ques. 4, cap. 29. CIC 1, 822.

7 Literally: “ . . say the benediction” (which makes the Evil One powerless).

8 Luther considered the Wartburg his Patmos. During one of the early perse-
cutions of the young Christian church, John, the writer of the Apocalypse, was
exiled to a small island called Patmos, where he had the visions set forth in
the Book of Revelation; see Rev. 1:9.

9 See the Introduction and WA, Br 2, No. 349; S-J 1, 384 ff.

10 Von der Beicht, ob der Pctpst Macht habe sie zu gebieten ( On Confession,
Whether the Pope Has the Power to Require It) (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg,
September, 1521). WA 8, 140 ff.

246

TO FRANCIS VON SICONGEN, JUNE 1, 1521

to penitents, 11 along with a petition to our ecclesiastical lords and
tyrants asking them not to disturb simple consciences about my
books, and showing, in addition, how their tyranny over the con-
fessional was without sufficient ground. But they are so head-
strong that they will neither listen to nor consider anything. Ah,
well, I have seen more bubbles on the water before this, and once

I saw an ambitious smoke-cloud set out to quench the sun; but
the smoke is gone and the sun still shines. I will keep on polishing
the truth and putting it forth, and will fear my ungracious lords
as little as they greatly despise me. Neither of us is over the
mountain, but I have an advantage: I walk unencumbered. God
grant victory to the truth.

With this, farewell in God. I commend Sir Ulrich von
Hutten 12 and Martin Bucer 18 to Your Grace.

Written on my Patmos , June I, 1521

II Ein Unterricht der Beichtkinder uber die verbotenen Biicher (A Word to
Penitents about the Forbidden Books) (Wittenberg: M. Lottber, February,
1521). WA 7, 290 f.; B. L. Woolf, Reformation Writings of Martin Luther
(New York, 1956), II, 92 ff. In this tract Luther set forth that confession is a
privilege for the Christian who is longing for the consolation of absolution,
but that it is not a right of the clergy to investigate the individual's conscience.

12 Ulrich von Hutten; see p. 163, n. 1.

13 Martin Bucer of Schlettstadt/Alsace ( 1491-1551 ) had attended the famous
college-type Latin school there and, at the age of fifteen, was persuaded by the
Dominicans to join their Order. While studying theology at Heidelberg he
became acquainted with Luther during the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518
(see pp. 60 ff. ). From the beginning Bucer was an enthusiastic follower of
Luther, yet he was too deeply influenced by Erasmus of Rotterdam to be
able to completely understand the Reformer or to agree entirely with him.
Receiving a papal dispensation which released him from his monastic vows,
he left ffie Order in 1521 and became chaplain at the Ebemburg, a castle
of Francis von Sickingen (see pp. 244 f.). After a short stay in Weissen-
burg/Bavaria, Bucer went to Strassburg. There he won the recognition of
the leading citizens and in 1524 was elected pastor of a parish. In this
position he pushed the Reformation to the fore and soon became the theo-
logical advisor and spokesman of the Strassburg city council. Although deeply
influenced by Luther, Bucer's Eucharistic doctrine was closer to Zwingli's than
Luther's, even though he tirelessly tried to mediate between the two men.
His efforts to present to the Emperor at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg a
Protestant front which was united in theology and politics were unsuccessful,
due to the Eucharistic controversy. Consequently the upper German cities
Strassburg, Memmingen, Constance, and Lindau could not join the con-
fessors of the Augsmirg Confession but had to turn over to the Emperor a
special confession, the Tetrapolitana, which had been drawn up almost single-
handedly by Bucer. After Zwingli's death in 1531, Bucer for a short time
was the leader of Protestantism in southwestern Germany and in the German-

247

LETTERS

To the People of Wittenberg
Wartburg, June, 1521 1

Like the last letter , this letter is a preface to one of Luther 9 s
writings . In it he dedicates his Exposition of Psalm 37 to his
people in Wittenberg.

Text in German: WA 8, 210-214.

To the poor little flock of Christ in Wittenberg,
from Doctor Martin Luther
Grace and peace from God the Father and
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

Having preached in many places, St. Paul did not, during his
imprisonment in Rome, cease to be concerned for those whom he
had converted. [He expressed this] by prayers to God [in their
behalf] and by writings which offered them comfort and strength,
as his epistles show. Following his example, I, too, ought not
and cannot be free of the worry that wolves may enter the sheep-
fold now that I am away. For I do not doubt that by Gods grace
we have heard and come to know the true and pure gospel,
which it has pleased God to open to you in part through poor me.
Although by Gods grace you have many others in my stead, so

speaking portions of Switzerland. By bringing about the Wittenberg Con-
cord in 1536 Bucer hoped to unite German ana Swiss Protestantism and thus
eliminate the sharp differences on the Eucharist which had developed— a vain
hope, however. After 1536 Bucer helped organize Protestantism in Hesse
and was one of the representatives of the Reformation who participated in
the conferences between Rome and the Reformation which took place
in Hagenau (1540), Worms (1540), and Regensburg (1541). Called to
Bonn in 1542 by Hermann of Wied, the archbishop of Cologne, Bucer
wrote the Cologne Reformation, a document famous for its middle-of-the-road
character concerning the great issues of the Reformation. Due to pressure by
the Imperial government, Bucer had to leave the German Empire. He went
to England in 1549 and was appointed to the Regius Professorship of Divinity
at Cambridge University, which he held for the remainder of his life. In that
position he was highly influential in shaping Anglican theology and liturgy,
especially the Anglican Order of 1550. See O.D.C.C. p. 204.

1 On the dating of this letter, see WA 8, 205 ff.

248

TO THE PEOPLE OF WITTENBERG, JUNE, 1521

that such anxiety on my part should be unnecessary, yet the
grace of the gospel requires us, of course, to bear worries which
may not actually be necessary.

We are not yet worthy, unfortunately especially I myself, to
suffer anything for the sake of truth except unkindness, hatred,
envy, slander, shame, and disgrace from the papists. Yet had God
not resisted them up to now, and had it been left up to these blood-
thirsty murderers of souls, we would have been tom apart by
their teeth long ago, as David says in Psalm 124 [:l-3]. Thus
our greatest suffering is that they decry us in the most shameless
way as “Wycliffites,” 2 “Hussites,” 3 and “heretics.” Since they are
unable to accomplish anything else against us, they satisfy their
malice by slandering our name and Christian honor.

But, dear friends, 4 give in, give ini He is up there who will
judge it. By Gods grace we can glory in the fact that we have
never shied away from the light as they have thus far done and
for which they must feel ashamed in their hearts. They have
feared this light as the evil spirit fears Judgment Day. Whether
they are willing or not, they have to admit and hear with great
pain and grief that I have now made myself available three times
—not to my friends, but to them, my enemies— and offered to
give reason and basis for our belief: First I appeared at Augs-
burg before the Cardinal, 5 [and thus] immediately before the
most prominent of my worst enemies, who would rather have fled
than hear the basis of my teaching and would have preferred
that I had not come. Then, as you know, I appeared at Leipzig
before those people who really did not want to see us. 6 But
all their malice and guile did not help them. The third time I
now appeared at Worms, where I even offered to set aside the

2 Followers of the English theologian John WyclifFe ( 1320P-1384), who was
condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance in 1415. See p. 147, n.
24; O.D.C.C., pp. 1480 f.

3 Followers of the Bohemian reformer John Huss (1369P-1415), who was
condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance in 1415. See p. 143;
O.D.C.C., pp. 667 f.

4 Luther wrote lieber Mensch; perhaps this can be paraphrased "for good-
ness* sake.”

5 Cardinal Cajetan (see p. 73, n. 3): Augsburg, 1518; see pp. 83 ff.

•Disputation at Leipzig, 1519; see p. 126.

249

LETTERS

Imperial safe-conduct and place myself completely in their hands . 7
O what mockery they put on then! I expected that bishops and
doctors would fully investigate me there; but everyone’s attention
was focused only on my recanting. God gave grace that not all
sovereigns and Estates approved of this plan. Otherwise I would
have been mortally ashamed of Germany, that it could have
been so openly fooled and tricked by the papal tyrants . 8 As
everyone knows, all this was only maneuvering on the part of
my enemies.

Now see, I boast in these three offers and appearances not
as if they were done of my own accord but that we may recognize
Gods grace, praise it, and seek comfort and become bold in him
who makes our enemies so stupid and timid that all together
they have not enough courage to listen to or oppose a poor
beggar who is present among them and is, on top of that, in
their power; instead they avoid the light like bats, and like night
owls they howl in the dark “Hool Hoo!” and think that they can
frighten us with this! If they were only so daring that they, or
any one of them, would come to us in Wittenberg and offer what
we had offered and consent to an investigation! This would be
well becoming to them, since they boast so tremendously how
smart they are in comparison to us. Then for once one could see
that their ability does not consist in shouting from the throat but
rather that it is stored in the head and brain. Since they set
themselves up as judges and shepherds and judge us so willingly,
they are duty bound to debate with us, to come to us and fight
like men for their faith. But what do they do? They are the
biggest crowd, we are the smallest. They have power over us,
we are subjects. They are the most learned people, we the most
unlearned. They are the superchristians, we are the arch-heretics.
Furthermore, if they are afraid, we offer them safe-conduct, free
board and room. Above all this, we ask them for the sake of
God to demonstrate to us that they are right. But this is of no use.
They stick by themselves in their own comer. There they make
decisions, there they judge, there they condemn without giving

7 Reference to the Diet of Worms; see pp. 188 ff., 195 ff., 199 ff. What
Luther meant by "set aside the Imperial safe-conduct” is not clear.

8 For a similar statement, see p. 202.

250

TO THE PEOPLE OF WITTENBERG, JUNE, 1521

the defendant a hearing. Once they have done this, then they say
and shout that they are honest Christian people who act in a
Christian way; and no one blushes.

Oh, how our ears would ring if they were able to accomplish
one iota against our glory— and then how we poor people would
have to bear the disgrace which is theirs! Yet when they bear
their disgrace, we have to consider it an honor and praise for
them. O the poor sad and forsaken Christian faith which has as
its guards such cowardly bats who hate the light and run from
battle. They only put on a big show with shouting and boasting
while they are by themselves in the sandbox; if one single man
appears on the battleground, then like mice they crawl into a hole.

Since all this is not helping them, they resort to calling out
some braggarts who attack us with vicious writings and wicked
books. They hope they can thus cover up their disgrace from
the common man and dress it up, although they know that their
authors are as talented for the task as the ass is talented [for
playing] the harp!

Once we had pushed them around with our writings, they
realized they were unable to deal with writings in the open.
Therefore one cannot blame these poor people for comforting
themselves in their disgrace with much writing— without scriptural
basis— and with cursing, slandering, and condemning. For this
reason I let them bleed themselves [to death] and slander to [the
point of] exhaustion. It is enough that we have Scripture and
they don’t, and that we act in public while they hide in the
comer, an honor which we will gladly let them have, since they
want it this way.

Now that I appear again in public, and since you poor peo-
ple have to bear with me the pains to which our name is exposed
by those highly famed, learned, and cowardly 9 men, and since
not all of you are of equally stout heart, I have decided to write
a little letter of comfort so that you will not be terrified by these
poltroons, even though I am not with you. Since I am not a man
like St. Paul, who could write and comfort out of the riches of

9 Luther wrote hassen, which can mean both "rabbits” and 'hate”; there-
fore one can translate "rabbit-men,” men who run like rabbits, i.e., cowards,
or "men of hate.”

251

LETTERS

his own spirit, I have taken up the Scripture, which is full of
comfort, as St. Paul says in Romans 15 [:4]. [I have decided to]
translate Psalm 36 10 into German and send it to you, togethei
with short notes. 11 In my opinion this Psalm almost precisely fits
our needs, for in an especially loving and motherly way it quiets
the rising anger against the slanderers and the arrogant. Of
course it hurts that the evildoers not only slander [us] according
to all their malice, but also that they even should be considered
right and should be respected; in addition they will be puffed
up for some time— until the day [they are deflated].

No one should doubt that our adversaries are the type of
people censured in this Psalm, and that we are the people being
comforted in it. For by Gods grace we stand on Scripture and
have an understanding of it, which they fear and from which
they shy away and flee; and yet they stubbornly blaspheme against
truth. Let them continue! Had they been men worthy of truth,
they would have been converted a long time ago through my
many writings. I teach them, but they slander me. I plead with
them, but they mock me. I scold them, but they rage against me.

I pray for them, but they reject it. I forgive them their malice,
but they do not want it. I am willing to give myself for them,
but they curse this. What more should I do than Christ did,
who says in Psalm 109 [:17], 12 “He did not want to be blessed;
therefore the blessing should be far removed from him. He
wanted to be cursed, so let him be clothed with it.” No one can
move anything into heaven that does not belong there, not even
if he tear it up [and try to smuggle it in]. On the other hand
whatever should go into heaven must go in, even if all the devils
should hang on to it and tear each other apart over it. St. Paul
says, “Avoid such a stubborn man after he has been admonished
twice, since he certainly is perverted and the judgment over him
is already settled.” 13 But we should not cease praying for the

10 According to the Vulgate; Psalm 37 according to the RSV, which is based
on the Hebrew text.

II Exposition of Psalm 37 (Wittenberg: J. Griinenberg, August, 1521). WA
8, 214 ff.

12 Vulgate, but RSV numbering. Luther followed the tradition of the church,
which interpreted the Psalms christologically, i.e., understood Christ and
his church to be the subject or object of a Psalm. See also pp. 13, 189.

13 Titus 3:10-11.

252

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JUNE 10, 1521

poor multitude who are ignorant and still being led astray by
them, and we should do whatever we can for them, to snatch
them from the grasp of the Roman murderer of souls and his
apostles.

With this, farewell in God; may he mercifully guard your faith
and mind in Christ. Amen.

1521 14

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, June 10, 1521

Forwarding manuscripts now ready for printing ( Magnificat , On
Confession), Luther discusses his literary work (Exposition of
Psalms 21? and 119, Postil) and his life at the Wartburg. He
comments briefly on Oecolampadius 9 book On Confession (see p.
230, n. 14), on the Edict of Worms (see p. 216, n. 7; p. 220, n. 12),
on the printed edition of his letter to the Imperial Estates (see
p. 203), and on the death of Lord Chievres. To avoid betraying
his whereabouts, Luther mentions that he will not write to Duke
John Frederick .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 354-355; translation based on S-J
2, 42-43.

To an outstandingly learned and devout man, Mr. George Spalatin,
Saxon court chaplain, my dearest friend in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin, sometime ago I received your last letter 1

14 The signature is missing since the text is based on the printed edition of the
work mentioned in note 11, to which this letter is the preface.

1 This letter is not extant. It could have been the letter that accompanied
Oecolampadius’ book On Confession (see p. 230, n. 14). Luther must have
received it around May 20, since he mentioned this book for the first time in
letter No. 81 of May 26. The letter must have contained more information
on the Edict of Worms; see p. 220, n. 12.

253

LETTERS

and Oecolampadius’ little book, 2 together with all the other things. 8
Since one may assume that you can best take care of it, I am
sending to you, as you see, the completed Magnificat* and the
treatise On Confession, which has grown out of my [short tract]
and is dedicated to Francis Sickingen. 5 If it is all right with you,
then have this material 6 printed as soon as possible, for I have
already sent the completed exposition of Psalm 21 7 to the printers.
So see to it that these things are also taken to them, unless you
think that something ought to be changed. I have not yet decided
whether I prefer to have Psalm 119 combined with the rest, or
to publish it as a separate little book. I shall send the remaining
part [of the manuscript] when I hear what you all advise. I am
working on it now, but it isn't finished yet, and so the messenger
had to leave it here. 8 I have not yet received the Postil ; 9 it has
been mislaid by him to whom I entrusted it. Meanwhile I have
written to Wittenberg that if they cannot find it you will see
that I get a copy of the Shorter Postil 10 (if you have it), together
with an index of the Epistles and Gospels [for the church year].
In the meantime I have finished a more detailed exposition in

2 See p. 230, n. 14.

3 Not known. Perhaps some of the material Luther had requested earlier; see
pp. 218 f., 225. The Latin Advent Postil , however, was apparently not in this
shipment; see p. 242.

4 While at the Wartburg Luther completed his work on the Magnificat ; see
p. 225, n. 17. He is now sending the last manuscript pages along with
fascicles previously printed so that the whole work can be completed.

5 See p. 244. Previously Luther had planned to write just a short sermon on
this topic ( see p. 225). It had grown, however, into a small book.

6 It is not clear whether this refers to the Magnificat or to On Confession or
to both.

7 Luther is confused here; he had sent Psalm 68 to Melanchthon for printing;
see p. 229, n. 5. Or perhaps he confused it with Psalm 37; see pp. 252, nn.
10 , 11 .

8 Luther had begun the exposition of Psalm 119 on the last sheets of the
manuscript of On Confession (see p. 246, n. 10); see WA 8, 132. He had
used this Psalm as a basis for the introductory thoughts in his work On Con-
fession. The messenger took this material along, and Luther finished the
exposition of the Psaun on different paper. He sent this portion later. See
p. 290. He is now wondering whether or not this exposition of Psalm 119
should be published by itself. It was finally published as an appendix to the
work On Confession; see WA 8, 186 ff.

9 The Latin Advent Postil; see pp. 229, 237, 242.

10 See p.237.

254

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JUNE 10, 1521

German of the Epistle for Christmas Eve . 11 I must also answer
Latomus , 12 who glories in the lord— namely, the pope.

I marvel at the spirit of Oecolampadius , 13 not because he
has hit upon the same line of argument as I have, but because he
is so outspoken, so confident, so Christian. May the Lord preserve
him and make him great. Amen.

I am both very idle and very busy here; I am studying
Hebrew and Greek , 14 and am writing without interruption. The
man in charge of this place 15 treats me far beyond what I de-
serve. The trouble from which I was suffering at Worms has not
left me but rather has increased . 16 I am more constipated than
ever in my life, and despair of remedy. The Lord thus afflicts
me, that I may not be without a relic of the cross . 17 May he be
blessed. Amen.

I wonder what is delaying the Imperial Edict . 18 On my way
from Worms I read a printed copy of my letter to the Estates
of the Empire; but it is full of mistakes . 19 It is said here that
Lord Chievres 20 has died and left a million gulden to Charles . 21
What a brave Christian, not to be afraid of these mountains of
gold! If only they would finally learn that the Lord is our God!
I have not yet answered the young Prince’s latest letter , 22 for
the place from which it was written was not given. I also do

11 Luther had begun working on the Christmas portion of the German Wart-
burg Postil (see pp. 237 ff. ). According to the careful investigation of the
editor of the Wartburg Postil, Luther refers to the sermon on the Epistle for
Christmas Eve (Titus 2:11-14), which he had finished by June 10; see WA
101* 2 f xlh f.

12 See p. 229, n. 3.
i® See p. 230, n. 14.

14 See p. 225.

15 Hans von Berlepsch, the castellan of the Wartburg.
i® See p. 217, n. 15.

17 For a similar statement, see p. 387.

18 The Edict of Worms; see p. 216, n. 7; p. 220, n. 12; p. 210. Spalatin
must have informed Luther that the Emperor did not sign Aleander’s corrected
draft of the edict on May 8. It was finally signed on May 26 and issued by
a pro-Roman rump diet.

19 See p. 203; for the bibliography, see WA, Br 2, 311 f.

20 William de Croy; see p. 234, n. 44; he had died on May 27.

21 Emperor Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

22 This letter of Duke John Frederick is not extant. On Duke John Frederick,
see pp. 181 f.

255

LETTERS

not think it necessary to answer lest by multiplying letters the
location of this place 23 somehow become known.

Be sure to pray for me. This is the one thing I need, all
things else I have in plenty. I do not care what they do about
me in public. I, after all, sit here in peace. Farewell in the
Lord, and greet all whom it is safe to greet.

From the Isle of Patmos , 24 June 10, 1521

Henry Nesicus 23

To Philip Melanchthon
Wartburg, July 13, 1521

Luther chides Melanchthon for various reasons . Reporting on
his life and work at the Wartburg , he tells briefly of his health,
discusses a rebuttal against Emser, and reports on the progress of
the Postil. Commenting on the situation in Wittenberg, he en-
courages his friends and urges them to be steadfast in promoting
the cause of the gospel. He stiffens their backbones against
Electoral interference in affairs pertaining to the gospel. Replying
to Melanchthon, Luther details his understanding of secular
government and authority.

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 356-359.

To Philip Melanchthon, faithful servant of Christ, evangelist
of the congregation at Wittenberg 1

23 Of Luther’s hideout

24 See p. 246, n. 8.

25 Luther did not know where Spalatin was and whether this letter might be
read by someone else. He hoped that Spalatin had returned from the Diet of
Worms; otherwise he would not have asked him to take care of the manu-
scripts (see above). Nevertheless to be on the safe side he used a pseudonym.
That Luther wrote this letter is evident from the handwriting as well as the
content. For further explanation of this name, see WA, Br 2, 356, n. 22.

1 This address is missing in one of the manuscript copies of this letter but is
supplied by another manuscript copy. In the first manuscript copy, just
before the fifth paragraph (beginning with “On the law of the sword”), there
is a special address to Melanchthon.

256

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JULY 13, 1521

Your letter 2 displeased me for two reasons: First, I realize that
you carry the cross too impatiently; you give in too much to
your emotions and as is your way you are just too gentle. Second,
you extol me so much. You err tremendously in ascribing such
great importance to me, as if I were so much concerned for God’s
case. Your high opinion of me shames and tortures me, since—
unfortunately— I sit here like a fool and hardened in leisure, pray
little, do not sigh for the church of God, yet bum in a big fire of
my untamed body. In short I should be ardent in spirit, but I am
ardent in the flesh, in lust, laziness, leisure, and sleepiness. I do
not know whether God has turned away from me since you all do
not pray for me. You are already replacing me; because of the
gifts you have from God, you have attained greater authority and
popularity than I had.

Already eight days have passed in which I have written
nothing, in which I have not prayed or studied; this is partly
because of temptations of the flesh, partly because I am tortured
by other burdens . 3 If this thing does not improve, I shall go
directly to Erfurt and not incognito. There you will see me, or

1 you, for I shall consult doctors or surgeons. It is impossible
that I endure this evil any longer; it is easier to endure ten big
wounds than this small sign of a lesion . 4 Maybe the Lord burdens
me so in order to push me out of this hermitage into the public.

I shall not answer Emser . 5 Anyone who seems fitting to you
may answer— perhaps Amsdorf , 6 if he is not too good for dealing
with this dung. I have decided to translate your Defense against

2 This letter is not extant; a glimpse of its contents may be obtained, however,
from Luther’s answer on pp. 257, 258 ff., 264 f.

3 Such as constipation; see p. 217, n. 15.

4 The constipation must have caused a lesion of the anus.

5 Jerome Emser (see p. 137, n. 19) had just published his Quadruplica (for
biographical information, see WA 8, 241), a rebuttal of Luther’s Answer to
the Superchristian . . . Book of Goat Emser (see p. 192, n. 5). Luther must
have been anticipating Emser’s move when he stated that he did not know
what Emser would do; see p. 234.

6 Nicholas von Amsdorf; see p. 218. Luther’s friends at Wittenberg ap-
parently wanted to spare Luther from having to reply to Emser; Melanchthon
suggested that von Amsdorf could do it; see p. 246. Luther preferred a
lesser, younger person to be commissioned with this task. Yet he must have
realized that an inexperienced person would not do after all, since in his next
letter (No. 86) he makes suggestions to von Amsdorf on how one could best
reply to Emser. In the end, however, Luther himself replied; see WA 8, 247 f.

257

LETTERS

the Parisian asses, together with their nonsense, and add notes
to it . 7 I greatly wish that Oecolampadius’ book On Confession
would be translated at Wittenberg in the same way, so that the
papists would be blown apart . 8 I am working on the German
Postil 9 to the Gospels and shall send [it] to the press at once,
as soon as I have finished ten . 10

Since things are going so well at Wittenberg, you certainly
don’t need me. I am unhappy with you personally, however, be-
cause you burden yourself with so much work and do not listen
and spare yourself. Here you are being led by your own stub-
bornness. I shout this at you so often, but each time it is as if

I were telling a story to someone who is deaf . 11

On the law of the sword, I think as I did previously . 12 It
seems to me that you demand 13 some commandment or some
counsel of the gospel on this subject.. Here I definitely agree
with you that no such law is found in the gospel, either as com-
mandment or as counsel; nor would it be at all appropriate, since
the gospel is a law for those who are willing and free, those who
have nothing to do with the sword or the law of the sword. But

7 Eck and Luther had agreed to entrust the decision concerning the victor
at the Leipzig Disputation (see p. 126) to the universities of Erfurt (see
p. 136, n. 9; p. 137, nn. 14, 17) and Paris. It was not before April
15, 1521, that the University of Paris acted. As was expected, Luther
was condemned. See WA 8, 255 ff. In July, 1521, Melanchthon published
the Condemnation issued by the Sorbonne, together with a Defense; for the
bibliography, see WA 8, 261; for the text, see C.R. 1, 366 ff.; for an English
translation, see Melanchthon : S.W., pp. 69 ff. Luther’s edition of the Con-
demnation, the Defense , and his notes was published in October, 1521, by
J. Griinenberg; see WA 8, 262 ff.

8 See p. 230, n. 14.

9 I.e., on the Advent and Christmas portions of the Postil; see p. 229.

10 See pp. 239 f.

II An allusion to a proverb recorded by Erasmus in his Adagia; see Clericus
2, 178 C. On Luther’s criticism, see also p. 119, n. 10.

12 Luther apparently is referring to discussions between Melanchthon and
himself which had taken place before Luther went to Worms.

13 Probably in the not extant letter of note 2. Melanchthon had discussed
governmental authority in his Loci communes (see p. 232, n. 21), in the parts
on De humanis legibus and De magistratibus. He defines the “sword” of Rom.
13:1 ff. as civil laws and ordinances as well as institutions set up to punish
malefactors. The problem (now confronting him, which he must have dis-
cussed in his letter to Luther) was whether Christians were allowed to practice
the “law of the sword,” i.e., participate in secular offices and help maintain
law and order. On Melanchthon* s stand on worldly government, see also
Melanchthon: S.W., pp. 89 ff.

258

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JULY 13, 1521

in the gospel the law of the sword also is not forbidden. It is
rather affirmed and commended to us. 14 We certainly do not read
this about things that are only permitted; 15 fasting and external
ceremonies— or any care for temporal things— are neither enjoined
nor counseled in the gospel. It would not have been right for
the gospel to regulate these matters in which the Spirit alone
operates in his freedom. But is it therefore a law that one should
not make use [of the sword]? Indeed, does not the necessity of
this life even require such a law and practice?

Your argument would do quite well if all people obeyed the
gospel. If the sword were abolished, however, how long would
the church of God exist in this world, since, of necessity, the
wicked are in the majority? Due to the licentiousness of the
wicked, no one could be safe from bodily harm or the destruction
of his property. But you do not want to be pushed with con-
siderations and incongruities but rather with Scripture.

I have said above that the use of the sword is neither en-
joined nor counseled in the gospel, as is the case with many other
things; yet it is commended to us and affirmed, as is the law of
matrimony, which also is not directly connected with the gospel.
For you have John the Baptist, who in Luke 3 [ : 14] instructs the
soldiers, saying, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation,
but be content with your wages.” Had they not the right to use
the sword, he certainly would have had to prohibit them from
using it, since they actually asked him your question when they
said, "What do we have to do?” Here you find military service
not instituted, yet affirmed. Don’t you think it would be much
harder for you to reply to anyone who quotes this passage to
you than for someone to answer your position? Paul, in I Timothy
2 [ : 1-2] , commands prayer for those in high governmental positions,
according to the example of Jeremiah, who commanded prayer for
the king of the Babylonians; 16 Paul does not order praying against
the governing authorities, as if they were something prohibited
or as if they existed without right.

14 Luther attempts to prove this in the following paragraphs.

15 "Permitted things” for Luther are things neither commanded nor prohibited
bv God’s Word; they are neutral in themselves and have no direct relation-
ship to man's salvation. See also pp. 156 f., 278.

iejer. 29:7.

259

LETTERS

You may object here that those were Gentiles. Yet they 17
did not pray that [those Gentiles] might come to faith but rather
that they would be and remain in peace. You will not convince
me that prayer could have been commanded by the apostles or
prophets for things which were only permitted and were to be
endured so that they could continue to exist and enjoy peace. If
this were the case, we should pray for robbers and (as you ex-
plain it) unjust tyrants, that they might continue to be unjustl

I cannot allow you to reject the statements of the Apostles
Paul in Romans 13 [:l-2] and Peter in I Peter 2 [: 13-14] as if they
were not applicable here, or as if they were only instructing the
citizens. You will not accomplish this, my Philip! These are words
of God— of great importance— when Paul says: [governmental]
authority is from God, and whosoever resists [governmental]
authority resists God's ordinance, and [governmental authority] is
the servant of God. 18 You will not find this to be stated concern-
ing things which are merely permitted. He who does wrong or
imposes intolerable measures is not Gods servant but Gods
enemy; a concession, or something permitted, cannot have the
function of a servant of God. In Scripture it is written several
times that God stirred up one people against another, as for
instance the king of Babylon (whom God in Ezekiel calls
“servant”) 19 against Tyrus. According to Jeremiah, 20 God stirred
up the courage of the kings of the Medes against the Babylonians.
This is absolutely different from the statements in Romans 13 [:4]
and I Timothy 2 [:2], where it is said that the [governmental]
authorities are instituted for [the sake of maintaining] peace. For
[according to the New Testament passages the governmental
authorities were instituted] to frighten workers of evil and not
doers of good, while [according to the Old Testament passages]
they were appointed for vengeance to balance evil deeds that had
already been committed.

What will you say when you read that Abraham, David, and
the ancient saints have used the sword with great bravery? They

17 The Christians whom Paul ordered to pray,
is Rom. 13:1-2.

19 Ezek. 26:7?; Jer. 25:9 (Vulgate).

20 Jer. 51:11.

260

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JULY 13, 1521

certainly were evangelical men. Of course they used the sword
only occasionally. It certainly is not God-fearing if the use of
something that was praised when used by these men is rejected
by the men of the gospel. For Abraham had no commandment
or counsel concerning the use of the sword, and, what is even
more important, in the gospel it is not revoked or prohibited but
(as I have said) affirmed— at least for those who were Christians
or believers, as were those soldiers who questioned John the
Baptist

In the gospel Christ had to provide for divine and heavenly
things; what wonder, therefore, that he did not regulate the use
of the sword, which can easily be regulated by human beings.
Yet he treated the use of the sword in the following way: were
it not contrary to the [essence of] the gospel that he provide for
the use of the sword, then he wished to provide for this use. At
the same time he commended it to us and affirmed it as instituted,
or rather he clearly asserted that it is divinely ordained.

Likewise, how Peter and Jude 21 complain that [governmental]
authorities are being mocked and slandered by the AntichristI 22
But may one not mock and slander licentious and evil things that
are permitted to exist? [The Apostles ], 23 however, want [gov-
ernmental authorities] to be held in honor and reverence. Do
[they] want the same for things [merely] allowed, or [even] unjust?

I am caught in these Scripture passages, and I have nothing
with which I might challenge my position; Philip, at this point
you satisfy me much less than I am successful in meeting your
arguments. You have no Scripture passage which condemns or
prohibits [the use of the sword], or teaches in any way that one
should avoid it. I, however, find the [governmental] authority of
this world affirmed, recommended, and as something to be honored
and remembered in our prayers to God, and that in many ways.

21 II Pet. 2:10; Jude vs. 8.

22 On the Antichrist, see p. 114, n. 16.

23 The subject of this paragraph is not clear. In the third and fourth sentences
Luther used singular verbs, which might suggest that God is the subject.
On the other hand he begins the paragraph with Peter and Jude as subjects,
to which he adds a verb in the plural. He might have continued his trend
of thought, thinking only of one of the apostles, which could explain the
singular verb form in the following sentences. The subject has to be either
the apostles, or one of them, or perhaps God.

261

LETTERS

Only this one thing is missing [in Scripture: governmental
authority] is neither commanded nor counseled in the gospel, in
the same way that marriage, the family, the discipline of the home
and the community, or any administration and care of earthly
things [are not ordered]. If you have something else that is re-
vealed to you , 24 show it. Produce your statements, however, so
that you demonstrate [earthly authority] to be something pro-
hibited, to be avoided, or only permitted. Christ said to Pilate that
authority was given from above . 26 But I think this means that
God does not give it to be used for evil purposes. But enough of
this.

I congratulate Amsdorf on his increase in wealth , 26 but even
more that he lectures so successfully on the Apostle [Paul ]. 27 You
are now well supplied and you manage without me. I do not see
why you miss me so much or why my work should be necessary
for you. You seem to be able to think for yourself since the
affairs at Wittenberg progress more favorably in my absence than
in my presence. You lecture , 28 Amsdorf lectures, Jonas will
lecture . 29 For goodness' sake, do you want the kingdom of God to
be proclaimed only in your town? Don’t others also need the
gospel? Will your Antioch not release a Silas or a Paul or a
Barnabas for some other work of the Spirit? 30

I tell you: although I would be very happy to be with you
all, yet I would not be disturbed if the Lord deigned to open to
me a door for the Word either at Erfurt or Cologne or anywhere
else, since you already have a surplus [of preachers and teachers].
Look how big a harvest there is everywhere— and how few are the
harvesters! 31 You all are harvesters. Certainly we have to consider
not ourselves but our brethren who are spread out all over the
country, lest we live for ourselves, that is, for the devil and not
for Christ. Therefore be concerned that we are not drawn to one

24 Allusion to I Cor. 14:30.

25 John 19:11.

26 See p. 264, n. 2.

27 See p. 267, n. 26.

28 See p. 267, n. 26.

29 Justus Jonas; see p. 275, n. 3.

30 Acts 13:1 ff.; 15:22.
si Matt. 9:37.

262

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JULY 13, 1521

another too strongly and seek the presence of the flesh more than
the Spirit. I am ready to go where God wants me to go, either
to Wittenberg or somewhere else. Concerning my return, I know
absolutely nothing. You know in whose hands that is.

Spalatin writes that by order of the Sovereign 32 there was
no disputation on that part of the theses which deals with con-
fession . 33 I don’t like this at all. I ask you all from now on to
anticipate the court’s suggestions instead of following them, just
as I have done up to now. Not one-half would have been accom-
plished had I obeyed the court’s counsel. Even at the court
they are human, just as we. But I shall argue this with Spalatin . 34
These things increase the courage of our enemies and show our
fear.

Farewell. Someone had promised to take along this letter
which I had written some days ago, but he has not kept his word . 35
I ask all of you to pray for me, since in this seclusion I am drown-
ing in sins.

From my wilderness , 36 July 13, 1521

Martin Luther

the Hermit

32 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f. On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.; the
letter is not extant

33 According to the WA, Br editor, this refers to two academic disputations
for which Karlstadt (see p. 79, n. 12) prepared the theses. The first disputa-
tion took place on June 21 and dealt with the vows of monastic and clerical
celibacy (see p. 277, n. 3); the second took place on June 28 and apparently
dealt with the question of auricular confession. The Elector intervened and
a part of the theses for June 28 must have been eliminated.

34 See p. 269.

35 The letter must have been written some days prior to July 13 but signed
and sent on July 13.

36 Luther wrote eremo , i.e., in the desert, in the wasteland, in the wilder-
ness, at an isolated place. In a letter written in German, Luther wrote
Wiistung, i.e., "wilderness”; see p. 343; WA, Br 2, 408. Thus it seems justi-
fied to interpret eremo as wilderness. This interpretation is, however, not the
only one suggested by this word and by Luther's usage of it. Luther wanted
to pretend that he was hiding in an Augustinian monastery (see p. 272) and
called himself a hermit (see pp. 234, 270, 323). Thus one could also trans-
late eremo as "from the hermitage,” i.e., from a secluded place in the wilder-
ness where he lived the life of a hermit.

26 S

LETTERS

To Nicholas von Amsdorf 1
Wartburg, July 15?, 1521

Luther congratulates Amsdorf on his appointment to a benefice
and mentions his intention to go to Erfurt for medical attention .
He also makes detailed suggestions about rebuffing Eraser .

On Nicholas von Amsdorf , see p . 218.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 361-363.

Jesus

I congratulate you on the increase of your income through the
Schmolln benefice , 2 my Licentiate , 3 and I hope it may benefit you
all. Forget about the rumor that I am at the Wartburg, which
that secretary spread . 4 Even the sovereigns 5 themselves don’t know
where I am, much less that secretary. By the way, I shall soon be
at Erfurt , 6 maybe even before this letter reaches you, because of
my ailment. There I shall appear in public, at least if they will
tolerate me for a short time.

Philip wrote 7 that you intend to answer Emser 8 if it seems

1 The address and date are missing in the manuscript copy of this letter.
That von Amsdorf was recipient of this letter can be established from its
content. Luther must have received von Amsdorf s (not extant) letter and
answered it shortly before writing to Spalatin about it on July 15. See p.
269; WA, Br 2, No. 419, Introduction.

2 Von Amsdorf was to receive the benefice attached to a chapel in Schmolln,
south of Leipzig, near Altenburg. However he did not have to reside there
or fulfil his pastoral duties in connection with it. For details on this type of
financial arrangement, see Schwiebert, pp. 257 ff.

8 A Licentiatus is one whom a university has granted the venia legendi, i.e., the
privilege to lecture officially. It is a degree between the inaster’s and the
doctor’s degree.

4 According to Luther ( p. 269 ) , a certain secretary of Duke John had written
this to the Electoral Saxon court at Torgau.

5 Elector Frederick ( see pp. 49 f . ) and his co-ruler Duke John ( see p. 269,
n. 8). Although after the collapse of the negotiations in Worms Elector
Frederick planned that Luther would disappear for a while (see p. 201,
n. 3), the Elector left the execution of this plan to his confidants (see p. 227,
n. 31) to be able to claim that he did not know Luther’s whereabouts.
Nevertheless Luther’s statement should be questioned.

6 On Luther’s plan to go to Erfurt to seek medical attention, see pp. 257, 270.

7 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 257, n. 2.

8 Jerome Emser; see p. 257, nn. 5, 6.

264

TO NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF, JULY 15?, 1521

wise to me. But I am afraid that he is not worthy of having you
as a respondent. On the other hand he may laugh and mock if one
of the young people should answer him, since he is full of Satan.
The spirit that rages in him seizes on words only to make a
mockery of them; but he neglects the issue at stake. Whatever
happens, if you people answer him then know that you are dealing
with a most wicked spirit and be well aware that you don’t talk
to a man. For [Emser] himself does not understand what he is say-
ing; the spirit which pushes him through a creeping illness of envy
toward fury says everything for only one purpose: to exasperate
and mock. Therefore one must write [against Emser] in the
simplest way and must strongly fortify everything well in advance
so that he cannot seize on any words or opportunities.

Let me give an example. He has to be answered in such a
way that if not he himself (we might as well give up this hope),
still everyone else, no matter how unlearned he may be, can
understand that Emser said absolutely nothing to the point— while
demonstrating from the statements of the Fathers that there is a
priesthood— although I had produced Scripture passages and de-
manded them. 9 One must show that he blubbered in vain with his
“Come out, St. So-and-so.” 10 For I have asserted in my little
book 11 that the Fathers called the [Christians] the [real] priests;
he vainly tries to show [that this was not the case]. One has to
[counter him] 12 with the words of Peter 13 and of Revelation 5
[:9-10] and 20 [:6] in context with the preceding statements and
the circumstances. One has to antagonize and insult the devil to
make him produce one Scripture passage through which it can be
proven that [the ordained clergy alone] are called priests [in
Scripture], just as I previously scoffed in my book. Then one has
to ridicule the fact that he wants to prove the [ordained] priest-

9 In Luther’s Answer to the Superchristian . . . Book of Goat Emser; see
p. 192, n. 5. The phrase “and demanded them” is missing in some of the
printed editions; it can be found, however, in the manuscript copy.

10 This quotation from Emser’s Quadruplica (see p. 257, n. 5) is written
in German. Emser quoted saints by calling them out on a stage, so to speak.

11 See note 9. For the specific passage Luther seems to be referring to, see
WA 7, 633; PE 3, 326 f.

12 The text has a lacuna here.

131 Pet. 2:5-10.

265

LETTERS

hood from that statement, “You are the salt of the earth.” 14 He
argues in such a way as if to prove salt and priests were identical.
Children in school know the difference, since after all they use
the small [Latin dictionary]. 15 Finally one has to show that the
authority of the Fathers is clearly ridiculed by the Apostle [Paul]
when he says, “Test everything,” 16 by Augustine (dist. IX, cap.
Noli.), 11 and by the statements of St. Jerome on Matthew 23 [ :35] :
“What has no biblical authority is as easily condemned as ap-
proved.” 18 One should not believe the Fathers more than they
themselves intended, that is, only when they quote Scripture pas-
sages. One must therefore show that this stupid man does not
even understand the point of his own book because he does not
discuss what the Fathers say, but why they say it in this particular
way. Thus the reader may understand that there is a difference
between saying and believing, and that we do not debate what
the Fathers said, but whether one should believe what they said.
One must show that thus far this blasphemous mouth has not
centered upon his real topic.

You will see other points; only do not doubt that an evil spirit
speaks in Emser as from his very own shell. He pursues only one
course: to depart from the subject and multiply his blasphemies
in many books. It is certainly an evil spirit. But his wickedness
lacks one thing: he possesses and occupies a dumb, stupid, and
unlearned shell. Yet he himself, no matter how wicked he may
be, declares sufficiently by his furious attacks just how hemmed in
he is by Scripture, and how he can't produce anything worthwhile
in support of his kingdom among the papists. And that hurts this
Satan.

I say this so that you 19 may write against him with a scornful
and quiet attitude, and that you wont let yourself become incensed,
as you would at a human being. For by contempt (provoking him

14 Matt. 5:13.

15 For this dictionary, see WA, Br 2, 363, n. 10.

16 1 Thess. 5:21.

17 Luther quotes Augustine according to the Decretum Magistri Gratiani, I,
dist. IX, cap. 9. CIC 1, 18.

is Commentary on St. Matthew by St. Jerome (see Petrology, pp. 462 ff.,
especially p. 470), IV, cap. 23:35 f. MPL 26, 180.

1 9 “You” plural, i.e., the men of the Wittenberg Faculty.

266

TO NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF, JULY 15?, 1521

by ridicule and convicting him of stupidity), you will exasperate
and torture the pride of this extremely proud spirit so tremendously
that he will vomit out many more blasphemies, and thus unmask
himself.

Had I realized sooner that Emser was possessed by a demon,
I would have harassed the demon quite violently. But even though
unaware of this, I have kicked him around vigorously anyway . 20
As soon as he has written something in Latin, as he has promised , 21
I shall do what I have not yet done. Peter Swawe 22 seemed to
me to be the right man for answering Emser. Yet since Swawe
was recently buffeted by the Leipzig people, it seems one should
not give the devil a second opportunity to display his old fury
against him. This devil, the jeerer , 23 would certainly repeat the
past example of his rage against him.

Praise be to God, who has not only given us this struggle
against the spirits of evil but has also revealed to us that it is not
flesh and blood 24 by which we are assailed in this case. There-
fore be of good courage and rejoice. He who has cast out the
ruler of this world 25 is not afraid of this outcast, whom he already
despised before he was cast out. [Christ] rules and wants to rule
in us sinners and in those who are fools for him, while Satan rages
in the wise and righteous men belonging to him.

I would like to be your student in the course on Hebrews, and
also Philip’s in his course on Colossians . 26 Thanks be to Christ,
who by the unspeakable gift of his Word makes us so rich. I
rejoice so much in your abundance that I can endure my separa-
tion from you most easily. For I see that it is not you who need
me, but I who need you.

20 In the work mentioned in note 9.

21 In his Quadruplica (see p. 257, n. 5), Emser stated that from then
on he would write in Latin to show the world that not all Germans had
been seduced by the monk and abandoned the true faith; see WA, Br 2,
363, n. 14.

22 Peter Swawe; see p. 236, n. 60. At Leipzig he had a sharp clash with
John Keller (see p. 123, n. 5) in the aftermath of the Leipzig Disputation.

23 Emser.

24 Eph. 6:12.

25 John 12:31.

so Von Amsdorf was then lecturing on Hebrews, while Melanchthon was
lecturing on the Epistles to the Corinthians, not Colossians as Luther
mistakenly wrote. See WA, Br 2, 364, n. 18.

267

LETTERS

Farewell, and pray for me.

Not pleasant but sad news has arrived here about Gunther
Staupitz. I hope it is not true. May the Lord keep this evil away
from such a fine family. 27 Amen.

From my wilderness , 28 1521 Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, July 15, 1521

Luther confirms receipt of a shipment from Spalatin and informs
him that his health is somewhat improved . He expresses his
pleasure about certain news of Wittenberg . Yet he urges Spalatin
to care for Melanchthon. He discusses the fact that the knowledge
of his hideout has leaked out. In conclusion Luther comments
briefly on the political situation in the Empire , Melanchthon s
Defense (see p. 258, n. 7), and his own book Against Latomus
(see p . 229, n. 3).

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 364-365.

To my friend in Christ, Mr. George Spalatin, Saxon court
chaplain, my friend and lord

Jesus

Greetings. I finally received everything, 1 my Spalatin. I tried the
pills 2 according to the prescription. Soon I had some relief and
elimination without blood or force, but the wound of the previous

27 What Luther meant is not known. Gunther von Staupitz (a relative both
of von Amsdorf and of the former Vicar General; see p. 64, n. 1) and the
monastery in Wittenberg had a long quarrel over the payment of interest
on a loan; see WA, Br 1, 371, n. 20. The unpleasant news may have had
some connection with this. See also p. 115, n. 22.

28 See p. 263, n. 36.

1 The Shorter Postil and perhaps also the Latin Advent Postil must have
finally arrived; see p. 242.

2 Medication to relieve Luther's serious constipation; see p. 217, n. 15; p. 257.

268

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JULY 15, 1521

rupture isn't healed yet, and I even had to suffer a good deal
because some flesh extruded, either due to the power of the pills,
or I don't know what. So, I shall once more wait and see.

All your news about Wittenberg is pleasant . 8 Thanks be to
Christ, who has sent others to replace me. As a result I see that
they do not need me any more, except Philip ; 4 he gives in too
easily to his moods, and bears the cross more impatiently than is
fitting for a disciple, especially for such a great teacher of teachers.
Please see to it that the Most Illustrious Sovereign 5 does not let
him suffer want in his living needs . 6 I am annoyed that the debate
on confession was prevented . 7 This would have been a useful
example against the fury of the papists, so that they would know
in what “great fear” the Wittenberg people were because of my
absence, since they dared to undertake such a thing even with-
out me.

Amsdorf has written that a certain secretary of Duke John 8
wrote to a woman in Torgau that I am in the Wartburg; for this
reason a rumor has started and of course it has spread all over. This
rumor will be convincing since it originated in court circles, whether
the secretary definitely knew or only suspected something. We
have hidden this affair with such great luck until now. Satan, who
had long waited in ambush for us, is betraying the matter. From
my host 9 I understand that this rumor is persistently maintained
all over the country, so that this affair can no longer be veiled
in silence. Up to now, however, we are still bravely keeping it

3 Spalatin must have informed Luther of major developments at the Uni-
versity ( new appointments, new construction, etc. ) which were initiated
through Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.). See pp. 232, 258; p. 275, n. 4;
Urkundenbuch 1, 111 ff.

4 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

5 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f .

6 See p. 167, n. 7.

7 See p. 263, n. 33.

8 Duke John of Saxony (1468-1532), brother of Elector Frederick and
co-ruler with him, became elector of Saxony in 1525. Like his brother, he
was a faithful ruler and administrator who supported Luther openly from
the very beginning. Together with his son John Frederick (see pp. 181 f.),
he was responsible for the administrative organization of the church of
the reformation in Electoral Saxony. In his political ability he cannot be
compared with the shrewd Frederick. Through his diplomatic activity,
however, the Smalcald League of Protestant Estates took shape as a de-
fensive alliance of those territories that joined the Reformation.

®Hans von Berlepsch; see p. 255, n. 15.

269

LETTERS

a secret; but we are also quite indignant that our faithful and
successful undertakings should be so easily made fruitless.

Besides this, I am physically healthy and in quite good spirits,
so that Philip worries about me in vain. If my ailment 10 doesn't
improve, I shall go to Erfurt to make use of the doctors there. 11

It is no wonder that Charles 12 is afflicted by wars. 13 He will
never have anything that prospers; this unlucky young man is
forced to pay the punishment for other people's ungodliness, since
at Worms, where he had wicked counselors, he repudiated truth
outright. He will also involve Germany in his calamities because
he has consented to ungodliness. But the Lord will recognize
those who belong to him. 14

I have seen the decree of the Parisian sophists, together with
Philip's Defense , 15 and I wholeheartedly rejoice. Christ would
not have made them so blind had he not decided to use these
affairs to bring about the end of their tyranny. I have already
sent the book against Latomus 16 to the press. I have nothing else
to report. Now I am finally a true hermit. Therefore, farewell.

July 15, 1521 Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, soon after July 15, 1521 1

In this brief note Luther explains that he is enclosing a letter
(see No. 89) for the purpose of fooling his enemies regarding the
location of his hideout.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 366; translation based on S-J 2, 46.

10 Constipation; see p. 217, n. 15.

11 See p. 264, n. 6.

12 Emperor Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

13 Lutner is perhaps thinking of the first war of Charles against France
(1521-1526) and the uprisings in Spain; see Schwiebert, pp. 46 ff.; Grimm,
pp. 197 ff.

14H Tim. 2:19.

15 See p. 258, n. 7.

16 James Latomus; see p. 229, n. 3.

1 Letters No. 88 and 89 are undated. In placing them soon after July 15,

270

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SOON AFTER JULY 15, 1521

Mr. George Spalatin, a servant of Christ, court chaplain to
the Elector of Saxony, my friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. I think my letter has reached you , 2 my Spalatin; now
I am sending another and some other things . 3 Listen to my ruse.
When the rumor of my whereabouts becomes so strong that peo-
ple cannot be persuaded that it is not true , 4 even though they
may not dare to assert it, I want you to “lose” the enclosed letter
I have written to you. This should be done with studied careless-
ness, either by you or by your friends, and in such a stealthy way
that the letter falls into the hands of our enemies and seems to
be concealing some great secret. I wish that this letter in my
handwriting would come into the hands of the Hog of Dresden; 5
no doubt he would gladly make it public. You take care of the
arrangements that seem wise to you. The letter carrier will tell
you that I am well. Yet I am hoping for better things.

Farewell in the Lord.

From the wilderness , 6 1520 7 Martin Luther

1521, this editor follows the WA, Br editor, who unfortunately does not
give the reasons for the assumed dates. Dating both letters soon after
July 15 is based on the following considerations: (1) Obviously the letters
belong together. (2) Both letters apparently were written as a result of
the news spread by a secretary of Duke John that Luther was at the
Wartburg, a fact to which Luther referred for the first time in his July
15 letter to Spalatin (see p. 269). With letter No. 89 Luther wanted to
counteract this rumor. (3) Luther thought that perhaps the books he was
publishing might betray his hideout (see p. 272). This suggests that
Luther wrote in the second half of 1521, when he could anticipate
the publication of some of his works in the near future. (DeWette in
Dr. Martin Luthers Brief e, Sendschreiben und Bedenken [Berlin: G. Reimer,
1826], II, 31, n. 1, has pointed this out already.) At first glance it seems
that one should date letter No. 89 in May because of the reference to the
riots in Erfurt (see p. 214). However the second consideration mentioned
above seems strong enough to substantiate the WA, Br editor's dating.

2 Perhaps No. 87.

3 Perhaps a portion of the Postil manuscript (see p. 237) and the rest
of the exposition of Psalm 119 (see p. 254, n. 8; p. 290). The “other"
letter is No. 89.

4 See pp. 264, 269 f.

5 I.e., Duke George; see p. 110, n. 20; p. 216, n. 8; p. 228.

6 See p. 263, n. 36.

7 This is an error in the autograph; whether or not it was intentional can-
not be established.

271

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, soon after July 15, 1521

This is the letter Luther enclosed in letter No. 88. It was intended
to mislead his enemies.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 2 , 367; translation based on S-J 2,
46-47.

To the excellent man, Master George Spalatin, court chaplain
to the Saxon Elector, [my special friend]

Jesus

Greetings. I hear a rumor is being spread, my Spalatin, that
Luther is living in the Wartburg near Eisenach. And this makes
the people suspicious since I was captured in the forest there.
While they are thinking this, I am hidden here in safety, provided
that the friars around me keep the secret. If the books I am pub-
lishing betray me, I shall move my quarters. Strange that nobody
now thinks of Bohemia . 1

St. George, the duke of Saxony , 2 is still extremely furious, I
hear. I hope it will be good for him; may he continue furious as
long as he remains a papist. I have the same answer for him as
the Landgravine of Hesse had, who is now the wife of the Count
of Solm. She knew the right reply for this great man: she ordered
her legates to remind Duke George of his grandfather Podiebrad
and his mother, Podiebrads daughter . 3 Don’t you know what that

1 Since Luther had been accused of being a Bohemian heretic ( see pp.
143 f.), he is now wondering why no one thinks that he might have escaped
to his “friends” in Bohemia. Yet some apparently thought of this, since
the Papal Legate Aleander had written to the Curia on April 29, 1521,
after the collapse of the negotiations in Worms, that Luther was expected
to retreat to Bohemia; see WA, Br 2, 367, n. 2. On the other hand
Luther wanted to give the impression that he was hiding in a monastery.

2 Duke George of Saxony; see p. 110, n. 20.

8 Anne of Hesse, the mother of Landgrave Philip (see O.D.C.C., p. 1063), mar-
ried Count Otto of Solms-Laubach in 1519, after having been a widow for ten

272

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SOON AFTER JULY 15, 1521

clever woman told the legates [of the Duke] at the Diet of Worms? 4

At Erfurt Satan has been plotting against us to give our friends
a bad reputation, but he will accomplish nothing. They are not
our friends who do these things. 5 Since Satan is unable to halt
the truth, he seeks to bring it into ill repute by inflaming the
ridiculous zeal of fools against us. I am amazed that the city
council puts up with this. 6

I am well, thank God, and enjoy a vacation from the papists.
Pray for me, and farewell. Our Illustrious Sovereign 7 does not
yet wish that my whereabouts become known, 8 and so I am not
writing to him. Again farewell.

From my quarters , 1521 Yours,

Martin Luther

years. Duke George reproached her for this below-rank marriage. She
replied that George’s father Albrecht had married the daughter of the
Hussite King Podiebrad— what could be worse? See WA, Br 2, 367, n. 4.
In identifying himself with Anne’s position, Luther wanted to counter
the Duke’s attacks in a fashion summed up in the saying: "People who
live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” At this point it is somewhat
difficult to definitely establish the text. The earliest printed editions do
not contain the name Podiebrad, but only “P,” from which later editors
and translators have conjectured “Podiebrad,” on the basis of Duke George’s
family relations. An old manuscript copy of this letter offers the following
text: “ut avi stii pellivicis et matris filiae pellificis recordaretur ,” i.e., “that
he be reminded of his grandfather pellifex and his mother, the daughter
of pellifex. Pellifex can be derived from pellis, leather, hide, shoe, parchment,
drum, and facere, to make, which suggests “shoemaker” as the translation.
This may have been a popular abusive name for Podiebrad.

4 The circumstances implied by this statement could not be verified.

5 See p. 214; p. 224, n. 8.

6 Luther wanted to divorce himself from any connection with the riots in
Erfurt and at the same time express his displeasure with the position taken
bv the Erfurt city council.

7 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

8 This sentence seems to mean that the Elector did not want to know Luther's
whereabouts so that if questioned he could honestly say he did not know
where Luther was. Respecting this wish, Luther did not write to the Elector
directly. Luther would thus have helped to protect the Elector's position with
this letter.

273

LETTERS

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, July 31, 1521

Luther tells his thoughts about changing his quarters . Comment-
ing on the appointment of Justus Jonas to the professorship of
Canon Law at Wittenberg , he gives his opinion of Canon Law .
He adds news about his health. Enclosing a Postil manuscript for
publication, he mentions some ideas on the organization of this
work as he envisions it.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin : WA, Br 2, 368-369.

Mr. George Spalatin, a disciple of Christ, my dearest friend

in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. The plague has now intervened so that I cannot move
to Erfurt, my Spalatin. I do not see why it would be dangerous
for me to stay there for a while, had I the opportunity. Of course
this would not mean a desertion of Wittenberg. Even if I were to
teach somewhere else, it would be the same as if I taught at
Wittenberg, since Christ is everywhere. However I do not seek
an academic chair or a pulpit, nor would I go anywhere for that
reason unless I were strongly urged to come . 1 I know that any
teacher who pushes himself into teaching is not called by God. So
far I have always shied away from the office of teaching ; 2 no one
need expect anything different from me on this point. I shall
always flee it. Had I been eager [to teach in public], I never would
have consented to go into this solitude.

1 In the fall of 1521 the plague harassed Wittenberg; see Urkundenbuch
1. 119 ff. Luther apparently considered going to Erfurt not only to consult
physicians (see p. 264), but also to live there for a while (see p. 262)
and teach, if called. Spalatin must have expressed the fear that this might
mean that Luther would desert the University of Wittenberg.

2 See p. 6, n. 5; p. 119, n. 7.

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JULY 31, 1521

Jonas 3 writes that he has high hopes concerning the [matter
of the] Canon Law; you take care that the Spirit may fulfil [Jonas’
hopes] through your efforts.

It is beyond my strength to fulfil your request that I alone
draw up an organizational plan for a Christian university . 4 This
matter requires the suggestions and judgments of many people. In
Wittenberg you have an abundance of men who can do this.

It would be best if the whole Canon Law were completely re-
moved [from the curriculum] 5 and that the sovereigns 6 for once
showed courage and completely abolished the ecclesiastical juris-
diction and punishments 7 in their territories. One has to venture
something when one undertakes a task that is important and
beneficial! If this sacrilegious jurisdiction is not abolished and

3 This letter is not extant. Justus Jonas of Nordhausen (1493-1555) studied
law and theology in Wittenberg and Erfurt. He was an admirer of
Erasmus of Rotterdam, whom he visited in 1519 by order of Elector
Frederick for consultation on Luther's case. In 1518 he was appointed
professor of Canon Law ( see p. 186, n. 1 ) at the University of Erfurt,
where he was elected president in 1519; while holding this office he
introduced Greek and Hebrew into the curriculum. He was called as
provost to the All Saints' Chapter in Wittenberg in 1521, and as professor
of Canon Law to the University there; see p. 262. Jonas refused to
accept the professorship, arguing that he could no longer teach Canon Law,
which, under Luther's influence, he had come to regard as contrary to
the gospel. Luther now expresses the hope that the Elector may consent
to the appointment of Jonas to a theological chair instead. Jonas soon did
become a member of the Theological Faculty and Luther's faithful co-
worker. With Luther he attended the Diet of Worms in 1521 and the
Marburg Colloquy in 1529. His legal knowledge was a great help in the
visitations and for the Electoral Saxon delegation to the Diet of Augsburg
in 1530. Jonas soon was responsible for introducing the Reformation into
various territories of central Germany (Zerbst, Ducal Saxony, Halle). In
1541 he became superintendent in Halle. When Luther was dying in
February, 1546, Jonas was at his bedside, and he preached the funeral
sermon in Eisleben. The Smalcaldic War (1546-1547) uprooted Jonas
from Halle. After a period of restless wandering, he finally was able to
settle down as superintendent in Eisfeld, where he remained for the last
vears of his life. Jonas is famous for his attempts to mediate between
Luther and Bucer (see p. 247, n. 13), for his contributions to the Augsburg
Confession and the constitutions of the territorial churches, and for his
translations of some works by Luther and Melanchthon into German.

4 In connection with the events mentioned on p. 269, n. 3, Spalatin wanted
suggestions for a reorganization of the University. See also p. 289.

5 This is written in support of Jonas.

6 Of Electoral Saxony: Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.) and his co-ruler
Duke John (see p. 269, n. 8).

7 On the jurisdiction of the church, see p. 70, n. 1; p. 140, n. 6; p. 186, n. 1.

275

LETTERS

thrown out, who will destroy the venomous Canon Law? My host
here has made an excellent beginning by hindering the [ecclesiasti-
cal] punishments . 8 If the sovereigns do not want to do this on
their own authority, then they should at least ignore it if it is done
by their administrative directors and judges. This would gradually
make it known to the world that nobody could be molested by
Canon Law, but that everything should be settled according to
regional customs and territorial law.

Concerning my health , 9 I have easier elimination now, due
to the strong and powerful medications , 10 but the way my digestion
functions has not changed at all. The soreness continues, and I
am afraid it may develop into a worse evil with which the Lord
afflicts me, according to his wisdom.

Please take care that the rest of the Postil , which I enclose,
is added to the previous material and published in Wittenberg
before everything else. I shall hurry to finish ten of the Gospels,
so that we can publish them in one book. I shall move the sermons
for four Sundays to another place, and add the rest . 11 I am doing
this so that not too big a book frightens readers and buyers, and
so that in the meantime they have something from which they
can learn about Christ.

Farewell and pray for me.

From the wilderness , 12 July 31, 1521

Martin Luther

8 Hans von Berlepsch, the castellan of the Wartburg (see p. 255, n. 15),
prevented the execution of the ban (see p. 192, n. 3; p. 210) by hiding
and protecting Luther.

9 On Luther's health, see p, 217, n. 15.

10 Sent by Spalatin; see p. 268.

11 See pp. 238 ff.

12 See p. 263, n. 36.

276

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, AUGUST 1, 1521

To Philip Melanchthon 1
Wartburg, August 1, 1521

Commenting on Karlstadt’s theses of June 21 and July 19, Luther
develops his ideas on clerical and monastic celibacy, on communion
“in both kinds ” on the private mass, and on the dynamics of faith.

Text in iMtin: WA, Br 2, 370-372.

You people do not yet convince me 2 * that the vows of priests and
monks are to be considered in the same category . 8 For it is of
special importance to me that the order of priests was established
by God to be a free order; with the monks this is not the case.
They have chosen their estate and made it an offering to God
of their own accord. To be sure, I am almost ready to decide
that those who entered this abyss before or during the age of
puberty can leave it with a clear conscience; but about those who
have grown old and lingered away in this estate, I don t yet know.

In addition to this Paul speaks very openly concerning the
priests. He says demons have forbidden them to marry . 4 * * * Since
the voice of Paul is the voice of the Divine Majesty, I do not
doubt that it must be trusted in this matter. Therefore even if
they have consented to the devils prohibition at the time of their
initiation, then now, knowing the true state of the case and with

1 This letter is a fragment; therefore there is no address, salutation, or
signature. On Melanchthon as recipient of this letter, and on the date, see
p. 284 and WA, Br 2, No. 424, Introduction. On Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

2 Perhaps a reference to a letter which Melanchthon may have added to

the material mentioned in note 3; this letter is not extant.

8 Luther is referring to Karlstadt’s (see p. 79, n. 12) theses which were

the subject of two academic disputations conducted under Karlstadt’s

direction on June 21 and July 19; see WA, Br 2, No. 424, Introduction. The

theses of June 21 dealt with clerical and monastic celibacy, those of July
19 with the Lord’s Supper (see pp. 143 f.). With this material Karlstadt
apparently wanted to prepare the way for the reforms he planned; see
note 24. When Luther wrote the present letter, he must have had only
a copy of the minutes of the disputations. When he wrote the next letter
(No. 92), he had received and carefully studied two sets of printed sheets
of the edition of Karlstadt’s theses of June 21, which dealt with celibacy.

41 Tim. 4:1 ff. (Vulgate).

277

LETTERS

whom they made their pact, the contract should be boldly broken.

Gods Word clearly establishes that the prohibition [of mar-
riage] originates with the devil; this puts me under considerable
pressure and compels me, therefore, to approve of the deed of the
“bishop” of Kemberg . 5 For God does not deceive or lie when he
says that this prohibition is of the devil. But if a pact has been
made with the devil, it cannot be binding since it was made in
an impious error against God, and with God’s disapproval and
condemnation. For [God] expressly calls those who are the
authors of this prohibition “spirits of error.” 6

Why then do you hesitate to yield to this statement of God,
even against the gates of hell? [The vow of celibacy] is not the
same as the oath the children of Israel swore to the Gibeonites . 7
For they were commanded both to offer peace and accept it if
offered them, and to gain proselytes [who] would comply with their
religious observances. All this took place with the Gibeonites.
Nothing happened there which was against the Lord or at the
instigation of the “spirits of error.” Although the [Israelites]
murmured in the beginning, they finally accepted it . 8

Moreover, celibacy is merely a human institution. Man, who
has instituted it, can also abolish it; therefore any Christian can
abolish it. I would say this even if it had been instituted by a
good man instead of by demons.

I have no such declaration of God concerning the monks;
therefore it is not safe to make the same assertion about them.
I myself would not dare to comply with it ; 9 therefore I will not
counsel anyone else to do so. If only we could achieve that
henceforth no one would become a monk, or that a monk would
not withdraw in the years of physical desire. We must avoid
offense, even in the things that are permitted , 10 unless we have a
clear word of Scripture on our side.

5 1.e., the marriage of Bartholomew Bemhardi, who was not really a
bishop but a pastor at Kemberg; see p. 115, n. 21; p. 231, n. 19.

6 1 Tim. 4:1 ff.

7 Joshua 9.

8 Josh. 9:16-18.

9 I.e., that the vow of monastic celibacy is to be abolished.

10 On "permitted things,” see p. 259, n. 15.

278

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, AUGUST 1, 1521

That excellent man Karlstadt 11 quotes from Paul that younger
widows are to be rejected, and widows of the age of sixty to be
chosen . 12 I only wish that this could settle the matter! For it
would be so easy for someone to say that the Apostle was com-
manding this in regard to those who would be widowed in the
future; the Apostle, however, calls those who have been widowed
in the past “condemned” because they have [violated their pre-
vious pledge not to marry ]. 13 And thus this authority 14 will
vanish and will not be a rock on which a man’s conscience can
faithfully rest; but that is what we are seeking.

Concerning the argument that it is better to marry than to
bum, or that they should enter the estate of matrimony in the
sin of a broken promise in order to avoid the sin of fornication 15
—what is this other than quibbling rationalization? We are look-
ing for a word of Scripture and a testimony of the divine will.
Who knows if he who “bums” today will “bum” tomorrow?

I would not have allowed priests to marry merely because
of the “burning” if Paul did not call the prohibition of marriage
erroneous, demonic, hypocritical, and condemned by God . 16 Thus
even without the “burning” he compels us to give up celibacy for
the sake of the fear of God. But it will be good to argue this
matter at somewhat greater length. For I, too, would want to
help the monks and nuns more than anything else, so greatly do

I pity these wretched men and boys and girls who are vexed with
pollutions and burnings.

Concerning “both kinds” in the Eucharist , 17 I am not arguing
on the basis of the example [of the early church] but of the
word of Christ. He 18 did not show that those who receive only

II In the theses mentioned in note 3.

12 To understand Luther it is necessary to read I Tim. 5:3-16. Karlstadt saw
a parallel between the case of the younger widows whom Paul considered
eligible for marriage, and the case of the priests and monks who also
should be allowed to marry.

13 Literally: “. . . they have made the previous faith void.”

14 I. e ., I Tim. 5:3-16.

15 Both arguments were among Karlstadt’s June 21 theses and were based
on I Cor. 7:9 and 7:2; see WA, Br 2, No. 424, Introduction.

i«I Tim. 4:1 ff.

17 See pp. 143 f.

i 8 The subject of this sentence is not clear. It could be Christ or it could
be Karlstadt. Probably it is Karlstadt, however, since at this point Luther

279

LETTERS

the “one kind” either have or have not sinned. But it is important
that Christ did not require either kind, just as he does not abso-
lutely require baptism, when a tyrant or the world prevent the
use of water. The violence of persecution puts asunder a husband
and wife (whom God has forbidden being put asunder ), 19 but
they do not consent to the separation. In the same way pious
hearts do not consent to being deprived of the “other kind.” Who
will deny, however, that they who do consent to it and approve
of it— I mean the papists— are not Christians and are guilty of sin?

Since, then, Christ does not absolutely require “both kinds,”
and the tyrant prevents them, I do not see how those who receive
only the “one kind” commit sin. For who can take the “other
kind” by force, against the will of the tyrant ? 20 We are under
no compulsion here, therefore, except that of reason, which de-
clares that Christ’s institution is not being observed; Scripture,
however, does not make any decision, and without a word of
Scripture we cannot declare it 21 sin. The Lord’s Supper is Christ’s
institution, to be used in freedom, and it cannot be imprisoned
in whole or in part. For what would happen in a situation similar
to that of the martyr Donatus , 22 when some could not partake of
the wine because the chalice was broken and the wine spilled,
and no other wine was at hand? And I could quote many similar
cases. In summary: since Scripture does not force [us to say]

began the discussion of the second set of Karlstadt’s theses ( from the
disputation of July 19, which dealt with the problem of the withdrawal
of the cup from the laity), in one of which it is stated, "He who eats only
the bread sins, in my opinion”; see WA, Br 2, No. 424, Introduction.

Matt. 19:6.

20 The translation of the last lines, beginning with "I do not see . . . ,”
is based on the earliest printed editions of this letter. The extant manu-
script copy of this letter has a text which perhaps could be translated:
". . . them should you not see the tyrant [or the tyranny]?” The rest of the
text is omitted. The (Latin) dative case of "tyrant,” however, does not agree
with the verb; the manuscript copy of the text cannot be used as the basis
of the translation since its text suggests that some words are missing. The
earliest printed edition, therefore, seems to offer the correct text, which
perhaps was based on the autograph, which is no longer extant.

21 1.e., the withholding of the cup.

22 Luther is referring to a legend from the Legenda aurea (see p. 17,
n. 5). While the martyr Donatus was celebrating the Lord's Supper, one
of his deacons broke the chalice. Since it could not be replaced, Donatus
picked up the pieces, and by his prayers they were miraculously joined
together and the chalice could be used again. See WA, Br 2, 373, n. 12.

280

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, AUGUST 1, 1521

that [communion with] only “one kind” is sin, I cannot claim it.

I am greatly pleased, of course, that you are restoring Christs
institution . 23 I had especially intended to work for this, had I
returned to you; for now we recognize this tyranny and can resist
it, and are no longer forced to receive only “one kind .” 24 But
I also 25 will never say another private mass 26 in all eternity. Let
us pray to the Lord, I beseech you, that he hasten to give us a
larger portion of his Spirit, for I suspect that the Lord 27 will soon
visit Germany, as its unbelief, impiety, and hatred of the gospel
deserve. But of course this plague will then be charged to us
on the grounds that we heretics have provoked God, and we
will be scorned by men and despised by the people . 28 [The
papists], however, will find excuses for their sins, and will justify
themselves; [God will thus prove] 29 that the wicked cannot be
made good, either by kindness or by wrath, and that many will
be tempted to do evil. The Lord’s will be done . 30 Amen.

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and
not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true

23 I.e., the giving of bread and wine to the communicants.

24 Major reforms in church life were soon introduced in Wittenberg under
the leadership of Karlstadt (see p. 79, n. 12) and Gabriel Zwilling (see
p. 39, n. 3). In October the Augustinians of Wittenberg ceased to celebrate
mass. The Lord's Supper in “both kinds” was administered to the people
at the city church as early as the end of September. Karlstadt' s ideas on
celibacy and monastic vows were enthusiastically received by the Augus-
tinians, and Gabriel Zwilling became one of the most violent and eloquent
defenders of abandoning monastic life. Thus Karlstadt's theses of June and
July contributed indirectly to the Wittenberg disturbances of 1521/22. See
Bainton, pp. 197 ff.; see also in this volume, p. 386, n. 1.

26 The conjunction is missing in the manuscript copy of this letter but is
found in the earliest printed edition.

2Q Missa privata, i.e., a mass celebrated for its own sake, that is, as a
sacrifice only, whereby the priest alone communes; no congregational
communion is administered. For more details, see J. Jungmann, The Mass
of the Roman Rite (New York), I (1951), 215 f. For Luthers criticism
of the private mass, see his Babylonian Captivity of the Church (WA 6,
512 ff.; LW 36, 35 ff.), his Misuse of the Mass (WA 8, 482 ff.; LW 36,
128 ff.), and letter No. 99, p. 317; see also pp. 324 f.

27 “Lord” is missing in the manuscript copy of this letter but is found in
the earliest printed edition.

28 Ps. 22:6.

29 The manuscript copy of this letter offers a text which has to be trans-
lated: “so that they [the papists] prove [demonstrate].”

30 The earliest printed edition of this letter repeats the “will be done.”

281

LETTERS

and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only
fictitious 31 sinners. Be a sinner and sin 32 boldly , 33 but believe
and 34 rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious
over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this
world ] 35 we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of
righteousness , 36 but, as Peter says , 37 we look for new heavens and
a new earth in which righteousness 38 dwells. It is enough that
by 39 the riches of Gods glory we have come to know the Lamb
that takes away the sin of the world . 40 No sin will separate us
from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder
a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price
that was paid for the redemption of our sins 41 by so great a Lamb
is too small? Pray boldly— you too are a mighty sinner . 42

August 1 , 1521

31 The translation here is based on the text offered by the manuscript
copy of this letter; the printed editions have a text which can be translated
as: “only fictitiously sinners.”

32 The manuscript copy of this letter has the following text: “et peccaris”
“and you will have sinned,” which makes little sense; therefore the
translation is based on the text offered by the earliest printed edition.

33 Passages such as this were misunderstood and used as main arguments
against Luther. Luther was interpreted as encouraging laxity and licentious-
ness. When the Peasants' War broke out, this opinion was strengthened.
Erasmus, for instance, constantly suspected that Luther was stimulating
discontent and even rebellion with his ideas and work. For the proper
understanding of this statement, see W. H. T. Dau, Luther Examined and
Re-examined (St. Louis, Mo., 1917), pp. Ill ff. See also pp. 12 f.

34 The phrase “but believe and” is missing in the manuscript copy of this
letter but is found in the earliest printed edition.

35 The word “here” is missing in the manuscript copy of this letter but is
found in the earliest printed edition.

36 The manuscript copy of this letter offers instead animae, i.e., “of the soul”;
the translation is based on the earliest printed edition.

3 ?II Pet. 3:13.

38 The manuscript copy offers instead anima, i.e., “soul”; the translation is
based on the earliest printed edition.

39 The manuscript copy offers a text which has to be translated: “that
we have come to know the riches of God's glory”; the translation is based
on the earliest printed edition.

49 John 1:29.

41 See I Cor. 6:20 and I Pet. 1:18-19. The printed editions of this letter
offer a text which has to be translated: “think that the price and the
redemption [paid and] completed for us by . . . is too small?” The trans-
lation is based on the manuscript copy of this letter.

42 So according to the manuscript copy of this letter. The printed editions
offer a text which has to be translated: “for you are a mighty . . . ”

282

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, AUGUST 3, 1521

To Philip Melanchthon
Wartburg, August 3, 1521

In this letter Luther deals at great length with Karbtadfs June 21
theses on celibacy and monastic vows (see p. 277, n. 3). He ap-
proves of Karlstadfs efforts, but he points out weaknesses in Karl -
stadfs arguments, especially in the exegesis of Lev. 18:21 , 20:2,
and I Tim . 5:3 ff. While criticizing Karlstadfs position, Luther
continues ( see pp. 277 ff.) to discuss monastic and clerical vows.
Though he is certain that there should be “an easy solution" to
some of the problems involved, he is careful about reaching any
conclusion. Luther also promises to fulfil Spalatins wish for a
thorough exposition of John 20:23, which is to be added to On
Confession (see p. 246, n. 10). Joining Spalatin in lamenting the
slowness of the Wittenberg printers, Luther urges that good work
be done on the Postil (see pp. 237 ff.); he also discusses the possi-
bility of a literary attack on the Sorbonne, and turns over to
Melanchthon Spalatins request to draw up plans for a reorganiza-
tion of the University of Wittenberg.

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 373-376.

To my friend Philip Melanchthon
Jesus

Greetings. I have studied the two sets of printed sheets of our
Karlstadt’s work on celibacy , 1 which were just now delivered to
me. I highly approve of his effort and diligence, of course, al-
though I rather wish that he had not twisted that passage about
the “seed” which was sacrificed to Molech 2 into a reference to the
emission of semen. [Our] enemies will ridicule the distortion of

1 Luther is referring to Karlstadt’s Super coelibatu, monachatu et viduitate
(On Celibacy , Monastic Life , and Widowhood) (Wittenberg: N. Schirlenz,
June 29, 1521), which developed out of the June 21 theses; see p. 277, n. 3.

2 Lev. 18:21; 20:2; see pp. 293, 300.

283

LETTERS

this passage since it is clearer than light that it refers to the sons
and daughters who were being sacrificed as a burnt offering to
the idol. I also do not like the fact that the passage of Paul to
Timothy 3 is treated so unclearly; it seems that it does not so
much regulate celibacy as the support of the widows of the
church. [Paul] says the congregation should not be burdened with
[young widows], and it certainly is a disgrace if they want to
marry afterward, when they have become wanton while sup-
ported by the congregation. [Paul] does not wish the conclusion
to be drawn from this that he has excluded the younger persons
from celibacy. For he talks only about widows, and excludes
those who are young and wanton 4 from [receiving] congrega-
tional support.

Again— and this is contrary to what I have written in the
previous letter 5 — it seems that Paul warns of future things but
does not make things of the past void. This passage, 6 therefore,
says absolutely nothing concerning virginity and celibacy. There
is a difference between a congregation supporting a widow whose
husband has died and whose other friends have abandoned her,
and a congregation supporting virginity and celibacy. I say this
because I don’t want [you at Wittenberg] to be publishing any-
thing based on obscure and ambiguous Scripture passages, since
the light which is demanded of us has to be brighter than the
s un and all the stars— and even then [our enemies] hardly see!

Who wants to insist that the statement, “I want the younger
to marry,” 7 refers to [younger] widows? Is it not rather a general
exhortation to all young women ( except those condemned
widows), 8 in the same way as when [Paul] said before, “[Treat]
the younger [women] as sisters”? 9 Paul does not say [that he
wanted] the younger widows to marry, since he had condemned
those who did want to marry. 10 I am hard pressed by the fact

31 Tim. 5:3 ff.; see pp. 279, 293 f., 302.

4 1 Tim. 5:6 ff.

5 See p. 279; what Luther meant here is not clear.

6 1 Tim. 5:6-7.

71 Tim. 5:14 (Vulgate).

81 Tim. 5:12.

»I Tim. 5:2.

io in the autograph this sentence is written in the margin.

284

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, AUGUST 3, 1521

that he says these younger widows are condemned because they
have broken their pledge. 11 I doubt whether this difficulty can be
resolved satisfactorily. One thing is certain: the pledge did bind
these younger widows, no matter how young they might have been,
if they are condemned [by Paul] for [having broken] it. On the
other hand it might have been that these were widows who
were not selected because of a personal vow but by a common
vote of the congregation. For he says, “Let no widow be
selected.” 12 Here would be a place [to mention] the power of
rejecting those whom it seemed wise to reject; but those who
were selected as widows had no choice of refusing their
selection. 18

The very strict passages of the Old Law concerning the
release from the fulfilment of vows do not move me at all. 14 It
is impossible that they can refer or be applied to the vow of
chastity 15 since everyone knows that they were given to people
who under threat of the worst punishment of curse and shame
were not permitted to remain unmarried— much less to take vows
not to marry. I am absolutely convinced that it is impossible to
prove from Scripture, either from a law or by an example, that
chastity can be classified as a vow. There remains only I Co-
rinthians 7; here it is left up to the individual [whether he wishes
to marry or not]. This decision cannot be regulated by laws and
statutes of men, except by an insinuation of Satan. Of this I am
certain— come what may. It is dangerous, therefore, to vow
chastity. But who would claim that there is no value in unmar-
ried life? Especially since, following the counsels and examples
of Scripture, one may freely live unmarried.

Although I am taking various things under consideration, I
see that Peter (in Acts 15 [: 10-11]), in the freedom of the Spirit,
also cast off from himself and from all the other men the unbear-
able burden of the Law to which he had still been subordinated.

11 1 Tim. 5:12.

12 1 Tim. 5:9 (Vulgate). The “selection” refers to the status of widowhood
to be supported by the congregation.

13 From “but those” to “selection” was apparently added by Luther after
he had otherwise finished the letter; WA, Br 2, 378, n. d.

14 Deut. 23:21-22; Num. 30:2-3.

15 1.e., celibacy.

285

LETTERS

The only reason he gave [for doing this] was the impossibility
of fu lfillin g [the Law], and the whole church agreed with him;
and after this he himself ate with the Gentiles . 16 On the other
hand the value of this action is jeopardized [insofar as our dis-
cussion is concerned] by the fact that he did nothing on the
basis of his own authority but had a commandment from heaven
to consider nothing unclean, that is, that the Law would not be
necessary for the Gentiles . 17 But he concluded without a revela-
tion that the Law was not necessary either for him or the Jews.
Thus, on the basis of the example of the Gentiles, he who was
burdened by the Law claimed freedom for himself also. I think
also of Christ, who on the Sabbath healed a daughter of Abraham
who had been bound for eighteen years . 18 What if also [the
Jews] were here "bent double ” 19 by Satan, so that at least the
majority of those alive, having not yet tested the Spirit, vowed
[to maintain the Sabbath law], either from their own or Satan’s
passion? 20

I am absolutely certain that there is quite an easy solution
to all these problems, even though we don’t as yet see what it is.
For if Christ were here, I do not doubt that he would dissolve
these chains and would annul all vows. He would not allow
anyone to be oppressed by an unbearable or involuntary burden,
since he is Savior and Bishop of all souls . 21 Therefore it almost
seems to me that at this point one has to use the freedom of
the Spirit and has to break through whatever is in the way of the
salvation of souls. For Christ has not yet made known by any
oracle, sign, or witness that he is pleased with this vowing busi-
ness. It might be quite dangerous to follow something of which
it is not at all certain that Christ approves, especially since we
see that so many souls perish unavoidably and against their will.

16 The food laws (see Leviticus 11) made it impossible for Jew and
Gentile to eat together; see also Deut. 7:2 ff.

17 Acts 10:9 ff.

18 Luke 13:11 ff. Luther wrote “eighty” years.

19 Like the crippled woman who was bent over, whose paralysis Jesus
ascribed to the work of Satan; see Luke 13:16.

20 The conjectures in brackets show that the text does not make it clear of
whom Luther was thinking. Another conjecture would be “the monks”
and “to live in celibacy.”

211 Pet. 2:25 (Vulgate?).

286

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, AUGUST 3, 1521

Under different circumstances such souk could have been success-
fully counseled if this vow of uncertain merit 22 didn’t exist.
Aren’t we running for an uncertain goal? Aren’t we beating the
air? Why don’t we rather slow down in our race? 23 How I wish
that we could discuss these things together personally! Maybe
Christ would give us more of the Spirit and a greater knowledge
and then ako more freedom. I pray that in the meantime the
Spirit may enlighten all of you more.

I have still another strong argument regarding all this. A vow
is never approved among men if it k made under the age of
fourteen; this means that a vow for the whole life is not permitted.
Who makes certain that a vow made after the age of fourteen is
valid for the whole life? God is silent and man does not know. We
miserable creatures, who are thus carried away with uncertainties
and follow them as dependable goals! For this reason too, it seems
that [taking vows] is impudent and does not please God, for he
is a God of counsel and knowledge 24 and not a God of unfounded
opinion, ignorance, and uncertainty. You see what great unrest
disturbs me! Nevertheless I cannot as yet decide anything positive
in these matters; I only wish to be helpful to all of you in your
attempt [to understand this matter].

At times I stood 25 without scruples for abolishing those vows
that were made under the age of twenty. I still would abolish
them, since everyone sees that they were made without counsel
and insight into the matter. I took this stand, however, only on
the vows of those people who had not yet changed their status
or dress . 26 Concerning those who have become priests in the
monasteries, however, I haven’t attempted to do anything yet, even
if they took their vows before the age of twenty. I don’t know
what phantom of pomp and human opinion is plaguing me here.
May die Lord Jesus instruct us and bring us by his mercy to our
freedom. We are certainly a people on whom no law should be
imposed— especially not for the whole of life— but to whom every-

22 I.e., the vow of celibacy.

23 An allusion to I Cor. 9:24 ff.

24 Isa. 11:2.

25 Probably in private discussions.

23 I.e., have been ordained to the priesthood; see pp. 277, 301.

287

LETTERS

hing should be left free. It is to be feared that whatever is done
Lifferently is not done in a proper spirit. But enough of this.

Spalatin asks for the second time 27 that I explain in greater
letail the word of Christ in John: “Whose sins you retain, they
re retained ,” 28 in the treatise On Confession , 29 I am astonished
f I didn’t explain it, since I had in mind especially to deal with
t because of [our] enemies. [Spalatin] may be disturbed by what
listurbs all of you, namely, that this passage is so obscure. But
low it will be hard for me to send you an addition, since I do not
Lave the preceding and following pages. Yet if it is really neces-
ary to send you something, I shall try, so that you may insert it
t a fitting place, if possible, after you make the necessary changes.

[Spalatin] is also complaining to me about the slowness with
/hich you people proceed to publish. Therefore I reprove and
ensure you whether I am right or wrong. Now look, what else
hould I do? You have six presses, I hear. As I figure it, I alone
eep four presses busy, and your Loci 30 and Karlstadt keep the
ther two busy. Yet I really wonder why my Magnificat 31 is not
et finished. Of course I want the Postil 32 to be printed in a good
nd correct type face . 33

I don’t want you all to be concerned about my health ; 34
hould I find out that you are worried, I shall confess nothing
Luther with regard to it. Who knows whether this should not be
he end of my ministry? Have I not stirred up enough disturbance
inglehandedly? I have not lived in vain. May God grant that I
ved pleasingly in his eyes. I see that all of you grow in spiritual
latters, so it seems to me that I could decrease . 35 I am proud of
his, and I wish I would become nothing and you would be every-

r George Spalatin; see pp. 8 f. Neither letter is extant,
sjohn 20:23; see p. 294.

) Which Luther had sent to Spalatin in June, asking him to have it
rinted; see p. 254.

> See p. 232, n. 21.

1 See p. 225, n. 17; p. 254, n. 4.

2 See pp. 237 ff.

* Since Griinenberg was supposed to print the Postil, and since Luther
ad reason to be unhappy with Griinenberg’s work (see p. 19, n. 8), Luther
r anted to be sure the Postil was printed well.

1 See p. 217, n. 15.

5 An allusion to John 3:30.

288

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 6, 1521

thing. Only pray for me that my faith in the Lord does not fail. 86

Please reply whether it would be wise for me to answer the
Oakes and Bedes of the Sorbonne. 37 I am concerned that I, too, 38
launch an attack against them, and [wonder] whether a more
extensive defense of the truth isn’t called for. For I know I have
to get advice [on this] from you all.

Spalatin has also written to me regarding the organizational
plan of a Christian university; but I have answered that this is
beyond my strength, that is, beyond the strength of a single man. 39
You people try to help him out on this. If you wish, you may
send this letter to Spalatin to read.

Farewell.

August 3, 1521 Yours,

Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, August 6, 1521

Luther expresses his opinion of Karlstadt’s work on celibacy . Send-
ing the manuscript of his translation of Melanchthons Defense
(see p. 258, n. 7), he authorizes Spalatin to postpone the printing
of certain of his own works . He expresses his impatience that the

36 Luke 22:32.

37 Luther planned to translate and annotate Melanchthon's Defense (see
p. 258, n. 7) against the theologians of Paris. Now it seems that he also
intended to write against them himself to defend his work. According to
WA, Br 2, 377, n. 26, “Oakes and Bedes” is derived from the names
of two outstanding members of the Paris Faculty. One of them, Noel Bedier,
also known as Natalis Beda, was the syndicus (or official receiver, or perhaps
business manager); the other one was Guillaume Duchesne, also known as
William a Querco, or William Oak, a professor of theology. On Beda, see
Allen 6, 1571, Introduction; on Oak, see Allen 4, 1188, n. 29.

38 The position of this conjunction makes two interpretations possible:

. . I, too . . . ,” i.e., as Melanchthon had done with his Defense
(see note 37); or *. . . that I launch an attack also against [the
Sorbonne] ...” i.e., as Luther had attacked Cologne and Louvain; see
p. 155, n. 6.

39 See p. 269, n. 3; p. 275, n. 4.

289

LETTERS

Magnificat is not yet printed and his surprise that his exposition
of Psalm 119 is apparently lost . He comments briefly on his health .
On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 377-378.

To my friend George Spalatin
Jesus

Greetings. I received from my host 1 the dialogues 2 and two sets
of printed sheets of Karlstadt’s [work]. 3 Good Lord! Will our
people at Wittenberg give wives even to the monks? They will
not push a wife on me! The author of the dialogues did not have
enough talent or learning. And I wish that Karlstadt’s writings,
too, would be clearer, since they are full of talent and learning. 4

I do not intend that everything I send should be published.
I wish [the printing of] this Defense of Philip’s 5 postponed until
such time as the presses are idle, unless you think otherwise.
The same should have been done with Psalm “Exsurgat,” 6 be-
cause there are other things [to be printed] that are more neces-
sary and urgent. For goodness’ sake, is my Magnificat not yet
finished? 7 I am surprised that Psalm 119 is lost. I am certain I
added it at the end of the treatise On Confession, so that a part
of it was written on the same sheet of paper on which the last
part of the treatise was written. If the Psalm is lost, then neces-
sarily the treatise On Confession would also be incomplete. 8 The
rest of the Psalm I sent separately with the other package. 9
Maybe you people don’t search carefully enough. Put into its place

1 Hans von Berlepsch; see p. 255, n. 15.

2 It is not certain which dialogues Luther means. For possibilities, see
WA, Br 2, 378, n. 1.

8 See p. 283, n. 1.

4 See pp. 283 f.

5 See p. 258, n. 7; Luther is including the manuscript of his translation. For
the text, see WA 8, 260 ff.

6 Reference to the exposition of Psalm 68 (Psalm 67 according to Vulgate
numbering), which begins: “Exsurgat Deus,” i.e., “Let God arise.” Luther
had sent the manuscript to Melanchthon in May; see p. 229, n. 5.

7 See p. 225, n. 17; p. 254, n. 4.

8 See p. 246, n. 10; p. 254, n. 8.

9 Perhaps with the “other things” of No. 88, p. 271, n. 3.

290

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 15, 1521

the part of my Answer to Catharinus I am herewith returning, for
I have a complete copy of it. 10

My constipation 11 seems to be permanent, so far as I can
see, and must always be relieved with medication. Only every
fourth, sometimes even fifth day, I have elimination. What a
terrific stomach!

Farewell, and pray for me. Watch out that you, too, 12 do
not marry, so that you don’t run into worldly troubles. 13
August 6 , 1521 Martin Luther

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, August 15, 1521

Luther sharply criticizes Griinenbergs work on the treatise On
Confession (see p. 246 , n. 10) but is pleased with Lotthers work
on Against Latomus ( see p. 229 , n. 3). He discusses Karlstadfs
way of arguing the case against celibacy (see pp. 283 ff.). Reporting

10 Luther is returning some extra sets of printed sheets of his Ad librum
eximii Magistri nostri Ambrosii Catharini . . . Responsio Martini Lutheri
( Martin Luthers Reply to the Book of Our Outstanding Teacher Ambrose
Catharinus) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, June, 1521). WA 7, 705 ff.
Lancellotto de* Politi, or Ambrosius Catharinus of Siena, O. P. (1484-1553),
studied and taught philosophy, theology, and canon and secular law in his
native Siena and obtained the doctor’s degree in 1500. Having joined the
Dominicans in 1515 as a result of the influence of the writings of Savonarola
(see O.D.C.C., p. 1219), he was commissioned by his superiors to reply to
Luther’s attacks against the primacy of the pope. In February, 1521, he
published a major work on this subject ( for bibliographical information,
see WA 7, 698 ff.), to which Luther replied with the work mentioned
above. Although a strict Thomist, Catharinus soon became a controversial
figure in the Dominican Order due to his stand on Immaculate Conception
and predestination. It seems that Cardinal Cajetan (see p. 73, n. 3) was
especially antagonistic to Catharinus. To avoid difficulties, the nature of
which is not altogether clear, it seems that Catharinus lived for some time
in exile in France. Despite his outspokenness he was made bishop of Minore
in 1546 and archbishop of Conza in 1552 and served as theological advisor
at the Council of Trent. See O.D.C.C., pp. 247 f.

11 See p. 217, n. 15.

12 Like Bartholomew Bemhardi; see p. 231; p. 342, n. 20.

131 Cor. 7:28.

291

LETTERS

on a hunt and reflecting on it, Luther hopes that he is not a
burden to the castellan of the Wartburg. He sends Spalatin a
manuscript of the Postil and gives directions for its arrangement
and printing; he also includes the exposition of John 20:23 for
insertion in the treatise On Confession .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 379-381 .

Mr. George Spalatin, my friend in the Lord
Jesus

Greetings. My Spalatin: I have received the second and third
set of printed sheets of the book On Confession from you; 1 I
had previously received them from Philip, too, 2 along with the
first set. I cannot say how unhappy and disgusted I am with
the printing. I wish I had sent nothing in German! 3 It is printed
so poorly, so carelessly and confusedly, to say nothing of the
bad type faces and paper. John the printer is always the same
old John and does not improve. 4 5 For goodness’ sake, under no
circumstances let him print any of the German Postilsl 5 What
I have sent of them should be stored away, or rather returned
to me so that I may send it somewhere else. What good does
it do to work hard if such sloppiness and confusion causes other
printers [who may reprint from this first edition] to make more
mistakes that are worse? I do not want the Gospels and Epistles 6
to be sinned against in this way; it is better to hide them than
to bring them out in such a form. Therefore I am sending you

1 See p. 246, n. 10; Griinenb erg’s edition. On the reasons for Luther's
unhappiness with Griinenberg’s work, see p. 19, n. 8. The edition of Luther’s
letter to the Imperial Estates (see p. 203), which he had seen while returning
from Worms and which was “full of mistakes” (see p. 255), was also
probably the one put out by Griinenberg; see WA, Br 2, 356, n. 17.

2 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3. Luther had received the printed sheets
of On Confession containing the text of WA 8, 138-158; see WA, Br 2,
381, n. 1.

8 Luther was dissatisfied with Griinenberg’s work in general (see p. 19,
n. 8), but particularly with Griinenberg's German publications.

4 Luther here used a popular saying which is roughly similar to the English,
“You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” See also WA, Br 2, 381, n. 3.

5 See pp. 237 ff.

6 I.e., the Postil.

292

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 15, 1521

nothing now, although I have finished almost ten large manu-
script sheets of the [Postil]. I shall send nothing more until I
have seen that these sordid money-grubbers, in printing books,
care less for their profits than for the benefit of the reader. For
what does such a printer seem to think except, “It is enough
that I get my money; let the readers worry about what and
how they will read it”?

Philip has sent me three sets of printed sheets of the
Latomus , 7 which I like very much.

How I wish that Karlstadt had tried to refute celibacy with
more fitting Scripture passages! 8 I am afraid he stirs up quite
a lot of talk for himself and for us. What kind of exegesis is
this: the giving of seed to Molech is the same as becoming
unclean by a natural emission of semen? 9 Everyone knows that
in this passage “seed” means the same as “children” or “off-
spring,” just as in Psalm 77 and 106 [:27]. 10 Why does he not use
the words of Scripture which call [such] evil “unchastity” and
“uncleanness” as the Apostle [Paul] does? 11 Any opponent will
be able to refute even the way that Karlstadt twists the passage
in Timothy on the widows who are to be rejected 12 as referring
to celibacy. The cause he has undertaken is important, and an
excellent endeavor, but I wish it were also done in an outstand-
ing, skilful, and successful way. For you see what great clarity
and strength our enemies demand of us, since they misrepresent
even the most evident and fitting [of our] statements. 13 We

7 Printed sheets of Luthers work Against Latomus (see p. 229, n. 3; p. 270),
which was published by M. Lotther in Wittenberg. Melanchthon must
have sent them, together with the printed sheets of On Confession.

8 In reference to Karlstadt’s work on celibacy; see p. 283, n. 1.

9 Lev. 15:16-33; 18:21; 20:2; see pp. 283 f.

10 The Vulgate interprets the Hebrew word for "seed” or "semen” as
"offspring” or "children.” In referring to Psalm 77 (Vulgate numbering),
Luther is not correct, since this Psalm does not speak of sacrifices of humans
or interpret "seed” as "children.” Perhaps Luther confused this Psalm with
Ps. 37:25, which in the Vulgate has semen , or "seed,” meaning children.

11 Reference to I Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19. These passages have to be seen against
the background of the Old Testament passages referred to in note 9, and
Gen. 38:9. Basing his argument on this biblical material, Luther considers
such emission of semen either immoral (onanism) or unclean (nocturnal
emission ) .

12 I Tim. 5:3 ff.; see pp. 279, 284 f., 302.

18 See p. 284.

293

LETTERS

are a spectacle to the world ; 14 how much more, therefore, do
we have to be careful that our word is blameless, as Paul
teaches . 15 Perhaps I am concerned about things that are not
my business. But they are not things beyond my concern, if
Karlstadt succeeds in his attempt. For what is more dangerous
than to incite such a big crowd of unmarried people 16 to matri-
mony on the basis of such unreliable and uncertain Scripture
passages, only to have them harassed afterward with continual
anguish of conscience, worse than the cross they now have to
carry . 17 I too wish to see celibacy made a matter of choice, as the
gospel requires . 18 I do not see clearly yet how to accomplish this.
But my warning is in vain. Maybe [Karlstadt] does not want to
be held back in his course. Therefore one has to let him continue.

I am enclosing a brief exposition of the passage of John, as
you wished . 19 It will be up to you tQ insert it at an appropriate
place, because I do not remember the entire treatise. I believe
that I had treated this passage at sufficient length previously,
however, so that this additional material would perhaps not have
been necessary.

Don’t be concerned that I have to bear this exile. For it
makes no difference to me where I am, if only in the long run
I am not a burden and inconvenience to the people here, since I
wouldn’t want anyone to be burdened with me. Yet I definitely
believe I am here as a guest and at the expense of our Sovereign . 20
Otherwise I would not remain one hour, if I thought that I were
consuming the property of this man here , 21 although he serves me
cheerfully and freely in all things. You know, if anyone’s wealth
is to be wasted, it has to be that of those who rule, because to
be a ruler and not to a certain degree also a robber is not at
all— or hardly— possible. The greater the ruler, the bigger the
robber. You would do me a favor if you would definitely inform

Cor. 4:9.

15 Titus 2:7-8.

1 6 I.e., the priests, monks, and nuns.

17 See pp. 279, 287, 311, 337 f.
is Matt 19:11 ff.; I Cor. 7:25 ff.

19 See p. 288. This insert can be found in W A 8, 162.

20 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

21 The castellan of the Wartburg, Hans von Berlepsch; see p. 255, n. 15.

294

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, AUGUST 15, 1521

me on this matter, because I can learn nothing from this kind
man except that he sustains me from the Sovereigns purse. But
it is my nature to fear being a burden where perhaps I am not
a burden; but an honorable man ought to have such scruples.

Last Monday I went hunting for two days 22 to see what this
bittersweet 23 pleasure of heroes is like. We caught two hares
and a few poor partridges— a worthy occupation indeed for men
with nothing to do. I theologized even among the snares and
dogs. However great the pleasure may be from these things,
the mystery of pity and pain mixed into it is equally great. For
what else does this picture [of a hunt] signify if not the devil,
who hunts innocent little creatures with his ambushes and his
dogs— that is, with the ungodly teachers, bishops, and theolo-
gians? This very sad comparison with simple, faithful souls was
only too clearly at hand. A still gloomier allegory followed. By
my efforts we had saved a little live rabbit. I had rolled it up
into the sleeve of my cloak and left it alone for a while. In
the meantime the dogs found the poor rabbit and, biting through
the cloak, broke its right hind leg and killed it by choking it.
Thus pope and Satan rage to destroy even the souls that have
been saved, and care nothing about my efforts. I am sick of
this kind of hunting. I consider more pleasant a hunt in which
bears, wolves, boars, foxes, [which like] wicked teachers, are
pierced with spear and arrow. Yet it consoles me that the secret
meaning is an allegory of salvation: hares and innocent crea-
tures are captured by people rather than by bears, wolves, and
hawks of prey and those like them— that is, by bishops and the-
ologians— and this signifies that they are here 24 consigned to
hell, but there 25 to heaven. I tell you this jokingly in a letter,
so that you may know that in paradise you courtiers who are
lovers of game will also be game which Christ, who is the best
hunter, can hardly catch and save in spite of all his great efforts.
A game is played with you folks while you play around hunting.

22 August 12 and 13.

23 Luther used a Greek word here.

24 I.e., when caught by the bishops who don't care for them.

25 1. e., when captured by people who care for them. The original con-
struction of the last portion of this sentence is rather ambiguous; the trans-
lation is as literal as possible.

295

LETTERS

I have changed my mind and am sending the rest of the
Postil. 2 * I think that since the printing of my previous shipments
may have been started already, 27 the work cannot be postponed
or stopped. But I do want it to be printed on folio paper 28
with Lotther s type faces, 29 since it will be a large book. I would
divide it into four parts of the year, from quarter to quarter,
so that it will not be too heavy and expensive. 30 But I know
my wish doesn’t count, since what will be done is what the
press wants and not what I want. Whatever does or does not
happen, please take care that those manuscripts of mine are
guarded carefully or returned to me. I know the Satan who
plots against them.

I wonder if my Magnificat will ever be finished. 31

Farewell and pray for me.

August 15, 1521 Martin Luther

To Philip Melanchthon
Wartburg, September 9 ? 1521

Luther congratulates Melanchthon on the Loci (see p. 232, n.
21 ). He continues the discussion of the problem of monastic vows
(which he had begun in No. 91 of August 1) and comes to some
definite conclusions which he formulates in enclosed theses. He
comments briefly on the problem of " unforgivable sin *

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 382-386.

Mr. Philip Melanchthon, disciple and instrument of Christ,
minister of the congregation at Wittenberg

26 See pp. 238, 240 ff.; see also above.

27 Whether or not the printing had already begun could not be determined.
On Luther's previous shipments of Postil manuscripts, see p. 271, n. 3; p. 270.

28 Or in large quartos; see WA, Br 2, 382, n. 20.

29 On the printing of books in Wittenberg, see p. 19, n. 8.

30 On this arrangement, see pp. 242 ff.

31 See p. 225, n. 17; p. 254, n. 4.

296

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

Greetings. I am most pleased with your Loci ; 1 there is no way my
poverty could criticize your wealth; continue as effectively, and
rule.

I wish I could be with you to settle the question of the
vows . 2 It is not good to debate in a letter. While one writes
quite verbosely about something the other person already knows
only too well, one omits what the other person is most interested
in, as for instance happened with regard to the question of
confession . 3 If I can, I shall arrange for a secret meeting be-
tween us at some place, since I am very concerned about this
matter . 4 In the meantime I shall continue to talk to the wind.

You write 5 that you have reached the point where you
believe that a vow should be nullified if one is not able to
keep it, so that the vow is not maintained in sin . 6 For goodness’
sake, isn’t this a completely unintelligible statement? Aren’t you
talking as if you wanted to say that a vow should not be binding
since it is impossible to fulfil it? Following this line of reasoning,
you would also have to concede that the divine commandments
are to be abolished.

Or does it make a difference that the commandments are im-
posed upon us but a vow is taken voluntarily? What else does
this prove than that [the vow] is to be nullified not because it is
impossible to fulfil but rather because it is taken voluntarily.
But that which is taken voluntarily has already become a law of
God, since Scripture says, “Make your vows and perform them .” 7
Do not follow reason at this point, but Scripture, and abrogate
the vow a priori and not a posteriori; that is, refute the principle
of the vow and its custom. It is over this matter that I am now
sweating. Whether or not a vow can be fulfilled doesn’t bother

1 Luther had finally received the first set of printed sheets of Melanchthon's
Loci; see p. 232, n. 21.

2 See pp. 277 ff., 283 ff., 293 f., 310, 329 ff.

3 This statement could not be verified, unless one considers it to be a
reference to the exposition of John 20:23 in Luther's On Confession and
to Spalatin's twofold demand that Luther explain it in more detail; see p.
288. Cf. p. 314.

4 1.e., the validity of the monastic vows.

5 This letter is not extant; for a glimpse of its content, see Luther's dis-
cussion below.

6 I.e., with a heart that breaks the vow.

7 Ps. 76:11.

297

LETTERS

me; on this point you will accomplish nothing with me. For this
way you could also make divorce acceptable, if the marriage
partners simply cannot get along. It seems to me that the salient
point of our discussion has to be whether or not a vow is binding.

Your Loci states 8 very well that the slavery of the vows is
strange to the gospel and contrary to the freedom 9 of the Spirit.
But here we really debate vows and not the slavery of vows. You
know precisely what such freedom and such slavery are and where
they exist: not in the vows themselves but in one’s attitude
[toward them]. For he who is free can, just as the Apostle Paul , 10
submit himself to all laws, and to the dominion of all men, in
the same way in which St. Bernard 11 and others who were monks
in the truest sense of the word surrendered themselves to [living
under] a vow . 12

It is part of evangelical liberty that one can submit oneself
to a vow and to laws. The Law of God does not come from
faith, says the Apostle [Paul ]; 13 it certainly does not have its
origin in freedom and it is contrary to the gospel, and yet we
live under it in freedom. Consequently, many have lived as free
under the slavery of the vows. If this were not so, your syllogism
would be perfect: Whatever is contrary to the freedom of the
gospel has to be abolished under the threat of an eternal curse;
and the obligation to keep the vows is of this kind, therefore, etc . 14
What a fortunate and desirable conclusion!

What now? No law or slavery is positively abolished just
because it is harmful and adverse but rather because it should
be a free matter; all laws are even confirmed because we estab-

8 Loci communes , 1521 (see note 1). Melanchthon, Studienausgabe 2, I,
52, 28 f.

9 A manuscript copy of this letter has a note in the margin which reads:
“slavery [dominion].”

10 E.g., Acts 16:3; 21:22 ff.; I Corinthians 8.

11 St. Bernard, O. Cist (1090-1153), abbot of Clairvaux; see O.D.C.C., pp.
160 f.

12 See Theses 76-78 of Luther’s Theses on the Vows (see note 36). WA 8,
326.

is Gal. 3:12.

14 This conclusion, attributed by Luther to Melanchthon, could not be
identified verbatim. Melanchthon might have stated it in the letter which
is not extant; see note 5. On the other hand it can be deduced from
the thoughts which Melanchthon expressed in the passage to which note
8 refers.

298

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

lish the Law by faith. Therefore the law of vows will stand
together with the freedom of the gospel, indeed, it will even be
made firm by it.

I wasn't satisfied with what I wrote in my last letter, 15
except with what I said concerning the passage of Paul in I
Timothy 5 [:3-16], where he condemns the widows who have
broken their pledge. But I wanted to give you an opportunity
to concentrate on the root, that is, on the law of the vow, and
not on the fruit, or the consequence of the vow. How far I
myself have progressed on this point, I shall write to you [now].

I think we can use no other counsel here than the one— as
we see— Paul uses in Galatians and elsewhere 16 with regard to
the abrogation of the Law. Don't you think that the Galatians
circumcised themselves with a true heart, as if they were serving
God by it and because they thought they were obligated to do
it? 17 Didn't they submit themselves to the Law for the sake of
God? Didn't they offer themselves to God by this in the same
way as when someone offers himself to God through a monastic
vow? But why does Paul draw them away from this? [He does
not criticize] them for submitting themselves [to the Law] but
rather for submitting themselves to it with an enslaved con-
science. [He made them realize] that this is the greatest
sacrilege against the grace of Christ and his Spirit.

I think one must show some courage here and must re-
formulate [your] syllogism in the following way: Whoever has
taken his vow with a spirit which is contrary to evangelical liberty
has to be released from it and his vow condemned; he who has
taken his vow with the intention of seeking salvation or righteous-
ness through it belongs in this category; therefore, etc., [his vow
has to be annulled]. 18 Since, however, almost the whole crowd
of those who say their vows do it with this intention, it is obvious
that their vows are godless, sacrilegious, and contrary to the gospel;
therefore their vows have to be completely nullified and come
under the anathema. 19

15 Of August 3, 1521; see pp. 283 ff.

16 Gal. 3:19 ff.; I Corinthians 6—10.

17 Gal. 5:1 ff.

18 Luther is rephrasing Melanchthon’s conclusion mentioned in note 14.

19 See Theses on the Vows, Nos. 45, 46. WA 8, 325.

299

LETTERS

How many do you think would have said the vow had they
known that they would acquire neither righteousness nor salva-
tion through this vow ? 20 Therefore almost all [of them] have
this enslaved conscience in one way or another; even more, they
vow for this very reason, in the hope that by so doing they will
be pleasing to God and become righteous and be saved. What
else (they say to themselves) should I do in the monastery ? 21
Since they say the vows with such a conscience, they are really
saying nothing but this: See, God, I pledge to you ungodliness
and idolatry for my whole life . 22 They vow that they will become
good through these works, but they don’t think even once of the
justifying faith. This error does not concern a temporal matter;
besides this it destroys legitimate marriages. It is absolutely in-
tolerable, because it sins against the salvation of souls and brings
about ungodliness as opposed to godliness. Therefore [this error]
has to be completely corrected.

But how can this error be corrected unless such a vow is
either repealed, or a completely new vow taken , 23 that is, a vow
which is undertaken in the spirit of freedom? Would the ungodly
Manasseh, who had made a vow to sacrifice his son to God through
the idol Molech 24 in order to imitate Abraham, whose freedom
he did not have , 25 still have vowed to do this had he known that
his action was ungodly and sacrilegious? 26

Certainly those who take their vow in this way pledge them-
selves not to the living God but to a lie and to their idol . 27 For
a vow of this kind, they deserve the sharpest censure. It is beyond
question that they should be obliged to keep such a vow. I am
sure, had I known this when I made my vow , 28 I would never
have done so, although I am uncertain with what kind of an

20 See ibid.. No. 43. WA 8, 325.

21 See ibid.. No. 44. WA 8, 325.

22 See ibid.. No. 34. WA 8, 324.

23 See ibid.. No. 58. WA 8, 320.

24H Kings 21:6; 23:10.

25 1.e., the freedom (from the law not to sacrifice humans) which was
given to Abraham when he was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; see Deut. 12:31;
18:10.; Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Gen. 22:1-20.

26 See Theses on the Vows, No. 36. WA 8, 325.

27 A manuscript copy of this letter offers this text instead: “idolo cordis
sui ” i.e., "to the idol of their hearts.”

28 See pp. 301, 331 f.; Bainton, pp. 42 f.

300

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

attitude I took my vow. I was more overpowered than drawn
[by considerations]. God wanted it this way. I am afraid that
I, too, may have taken my vow in an impious and sacrilegious way.

Therefore I think one must not only suggest but instruct our
Galatians 29 confidently to trample upon their vows and grieve
over the ungodliness and sacrilege [in which they had become
involved]; nothing should delay them, even if in the meantime
they were bewitched and fooled into taking holy orders 80 (as
they call them). This freedom, even necessity, applies especially
to those who said their vows as young people or children. For
they really have never learned what faith is, or law, and have
been trapped like a flock of stupid birds in a net. Therefore they
are to be freed and rebuked for their thoughtlessness and fool-
ishness.

There can be no rule established for others by which we
may know whether someone said his vow with a sacrilegious
attitude or not. This has to be left to their consciences, as has
to be done with every other good work. For who, besides the
spirit of man which is in him, could know 31 in what attitude
a man takes a vow or does a good work? A work of the law
or of the slavery of the vow is not judged on the basis of the
work itself but on the basis of the attitude of the heart, by Him
who weighs the spirits and commands us to judge in the same
way . 82

I remember when I made my vow, my earthly father was
terribly angry with this; after he was reconciled to the idea, I
had to listen to the following: Let’s hope that this was not a
delusion from Satan . 38 This word took such deep root in my
heart that I have never heard anything from his mouth which I
remembered more persistently. It seemed to me as if God had
spoken to me from afar, through my father s mouth— it was late,
yet it was enough to punish and admonish me.

29 Here the monks are compared with the Galatians, since the consciences
of both were enslaved by legalism.

30 I.e., the ordination into the priesthood; see pp. 277, 287; Theses on the
Vows , No. 112. WA 8, 328.

31 1 Cor. 2:11.

82 1 John 4:1.

33 See pp. 331 f.; Bainton, pp. 42 f.; WA, TR 1, Nos. 623, 881; 3, No. 3556.

301

LETTERS

On this basis 84 I feel justified in having all vows annulled,
or at least in having them renewed [in a different attitude]. Being
content with this notion, I shall look for nothing else. For in
this matter it is absolutely obvious that such vows, if they are
taken in the attitude which I have mentioned, are taken and
kept in opposition to the whole First Table , 35 in opposition to
faith and to the gospel, and as highest idolatry. If you have said
your vow, however, in a free and evangelical attitude and have
made yourself a slave voluntarily, then it is right that you keep
your vow and fulfil it. Yet I would not want to affirm that an
evangelical heart ever would dare or has dared to do this, except
by self-deception.

I am sending you theses on this subject; 38 if you want to
publish them I may add very short explanations 37 and dedicate
them to the congregation at Wittenberg. For I think that this
clear and sound logic, which is sufficiently based on Scripture,
can hold out against light and publicity. What can the statements
of the Law on vows prove against this ? 38

That leaves only that passage of Paul concerning the widows . 39
I shall not admit that this passage is contrary to this basic opin-
ion concerning Law and faith, and I shall make no concession
to it. I shall rather say that it is not clear; or I shall understand
it in this way: these widows have made their vows 40 in the
freedom of faith, which was then so new and well understood,
just as Demas and all in Asia relinquished [this freedom ]. 41 But
our people now are a heathen people who have never been
taught anything about faith.

34 I.e., all the reason* Luther has so far set forth in this letter.

35 I.e., the first three Ten Commandments, referring to duty toward God.

36 I.e., the Themata de Votis (so in Luther’s September 9 letter to von
Amsdorf; see WA, Br 2, 390; p. 310), the Theses on the Vows, from
which Luther had quoted above; for the text, see WA 8, 323 f.

37 For the time being Luther postponed this plan of writing "very short
explanations” of the Theses on the Vows. On the same day he promised
von Amsdorf to send “other theses” in which the problem of the vows
would be debated in greater detail.

33 See p. 285.

3» I Tim. 5:3 ff.; see pp. 279, 284 f., 293 f.

40 To remain unmarried.

41 II Tim. 1:15; 4:10. The conjecture could also read “this faith,” or, if one
uses die text offered by one of the available manuscript copies, “Paul.”

302

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

You write me what you think and conclude on this matter,
for I am afraid these things are already old stuff for you.

This further proves the stupidity of the vows, that one makes
a solemn promise of poverty and obedience. These two things
are either a fiction or were once instituted only for children who
should receive their first education. It seems, therefore, that the
whole vowing business was nothing but some kind of discipline
to guide children during their younger days. Now grown-up
men vow, and that for all eternity— men who should serve others
voluntarily, out of love.

What now? Am I myself already free and no longer a monk?
Do you think that you should be a Demas for me, and finally
fix up this Micio with a Sostrata, in order to get even with me
for having given you a wife, as they say ? 42 But I shall be
quite careful with you, that you don't succeed I

I am not saying anything about the sin against the Holy
Spirit , 43 since you are more learned and filled with the Spirit
than I am . 44

42 Reference to characters in the Adelphi of the Roman playwright Terence
(2nd century b.c. ). Demas persuaded Micio that he should marry Sostrata;
see O.C.D., p. 884. Melanchthon had been married since November, 1520;
see p. 166, n. 5.

43 Matt. 12:31-32.

44 This must be a reply to questions asked by Melanchthon in a not extant
letter, perhaps the one mentioned in note 5. The problem concerning the
sin against the Holy Spirit was raised by John Bugenhagen in an open
letter which was published in the fall of 1521; see WA, Br 2, 387, n. 32.

John Bugenhagen of Pomerania (1485-1558) matriculated in the
Theological Faculty of Wittenberg University in 1521; he was graduated
as Doctor of Theology in 1533 and became a professor of theology at
Wittenberg in 1535. In 1523 he was appointed the pastor of the city
church, a position he held to the end of his life, in spite of many calls to
high positions in other territories. Bugenhagen’s deep feeling for the
pastoral and episcopal office and his talents for organizing the work of the
chinch made him one of the truly great men of the Reformation, though
he and his writings are unfortunately little known. He was responsible
for creating the superintendent's office, which was supposed to oversee doc-
trine and discipline within the congregations. He guided the organization
of the church of the Reformation in many northern German territorial states
and in the kingdom of Denmark, and he dedicated his efforts to estab-
lishing many schools and universities. Bugenhagen, who was Luther's pastor,
had a very close friendship with him. He assisted in the translation of
the Bible and translated Luther's German Bible into a Low German dialect.
He gave Luther pastoral counsel in the many spiritual distresses the Reformer
had to endure. See O.D.C.C., p. 205.

303

LETTERS

The [problem of the] “burning,” 45 however, which you do
not want to have minimized, 46 I in the meantime have reduced
to even less importance, 47 because I think it is only the fire of a
burning desire. The Apostle [Paul] calls the pollutions unclean-
ness, as you know. 48 And in II [Cor. 11:29] he says, “Who is
made to fall and I do not bum?” It will be difficult for you to
prove any worse burning than this.

In the meantime I shall ponder the sin of blasphemy, for
this is the only sin Christ considers to be against the Holy Spirit
and unforgivable. 49 It seems to me that neither Peter nor Paul
ever committed this sin. 60 Up to now I think— with the same
simplicity with which you yourself argue— that there is some
kind of sin which is unforgivable compared with others. John
calls it “sin unto death,” 61 and Paul, in Titus 3 [: 10-11, Vulgate],
calls it “heresy.”

Farewell for now, and pray for me. I. wish you would be
burdened ten times as much, so little sympathy do I have for
you. You are so often admonished not to load yourself down
with so many burdens. 62 Yet you refuse to listen and despise all
well-meant admonitions. The time will come, and then it will
be too late, when you will condemn this your stupid zeal, with
which you are eager to carry everything alone, as if you were
made of iron or stone.

From the wilderness , 63 September 9 , 1521

Martin Luther

45 1 Cor. 7:9.

46 Apparently also in the (not extant) letter mentioned in note 5, in reply
to Luther’s statements in his letter of August 1; see p. 279.

47 See p. 279 f .

48 Gal. 5:19; Eph. 4:19; see p. 293, n. 11.

49 See notes 43, 44.

50 1.e., not even Peter by denying Christ, or Paul by persecuting the Christians,
oil John 5:10.

52 For similar statements, see p. 119, n. 10.

53 See p. 263, n. 30.

304

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

To George Spalatin 1
Wartburg, September 9, 1521

Luther expresses his reaction to certain statements made by
Erasmus and Capito, and he criticizes them both for what he
thinks is cowardice on their part . He is delighted that Wittenberg
prospers in spite of his absence . Concerned for the proclamation
of GocTs Word in Wittenberg ; however , he urges Spalatin to inter-
vene with the city council so that Melanchthon may be called
as a lay preacher .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA , Br 2, 387-389; translation based on S-J
2, 56-59 .

Jesus

Greetings. Neither Capito’s 2 nor Erasmus ’ 3 opinion moves me in
the least . 4 They are only doing what I have suspected. Indeed

1 The addressee is missing in the autograph. Since the earliest printed editions
it has generally been assumed that the letter was addressed to Spalatin. That
this assumption is quite correct can be seen from the contents, especially
from the statement explained in note 11.

2 Wolfgang Fabricius Capito ( 1478-1541 ) studied medicine, law, and
theology in Freiburg/Breisgau, where he also taught theology. From 1515
to 1520 he was a preacher in the town of Basel and a close friend of
Erasmus of Rotterdam. In 1520 he was appointed cathedral preacher in
Mainz and became chancellor to Archbishop Albrecht (see pp. 44 f.),
a position in which he tried hard to mediate between Luther ana Albrecht.
Due to the basic influence of Humanism, Capito was broad-minded in his
attitude toward the theological issues existing between Luther and Rome.
As a result he could not understand Luther, and they disagreed violently;
see pp. 372 ff. In 1523 Capito was appointed provost of the St. Thomas Chapter
in Strassburg. Here he committed himself wholeheartedly to the Reforma-
tion. Theologically he represented the Reformed branch of the Reformation.
This became especially obvious during the eucharistic controversy. Com-
pared with Bucer, who was the theological leader of Strassburg, Capito
was of little importance, although he was superintendent of Strassburg until
his death. See O.D.C.C., p. 234.

8 Erasmus of Rotterdam; see pp. 116 f.

4 The following letters and events apparently are the background of this state-
ment: the “opinion of Capito” refers to a (not extant) letter written by
Capito to Spalatin sometime in the summer of 1521 in an attempt to bring
about a truce between Luther and the Archbishop of Mainz (in whose service
Capito was at that time). In this letter Capito must have voiced his unhappi-

305

LETTERS

I have been afraid that someday I should have some trouble with
one or the other of them . 5 For I saw that Erasmus was far from
the knowledge of grace , 6 since in all his writings he is not con-
cerned for the cross but for peace. He thinks that everything
should be discussed and handled in a civil manner and with a
certain benevolent kindliness. But Behemoth 7 pays no attention
and nothing improves by this. I remember when [Erasmus]
said in his preface to the New Testament, [and he must have
been thinking] of himself, “The Christian easily despises glory .” 8
I thought in my heart: Erasmus, I am afraid you deceive your-
self. It is a great thing to despise glory. But his way of despising
glory was to think lightly of it, not to bear the contempt that
others put upon him. Despising glory, however, is nothing if it
is only in words; it is even less than nothing if only in thought.
The kingdom of God consists in power, says Paul . 9 Therefore
up to now I have not dared to boast about anything and am
unable to do so, except about the Word of truth which the Lord
has given to me. Their 10 writings accomplish nothing because
they refrain from chiding, biting, and giving offense. For when
the popes [and bishops] are admonished in a civil manner they

ness with some of Luther's statements, and perhaps even criticized Luther's
sharp attacks on the Roman hierarchy. Spalatin must have shown this letter
to Melanchthon, who in turn wrote to Capito that if he (Capito) had some-
thing to criticize in Luther's teachings, he should discuss it with him,
Melanchthon; see C.R. 1, 456. Luther must have heard of Capito's letter.
The “opinion of Erasmus" apparently refers to two letters of Erasmus: one to
George Spalatin (July 6, 1520; Allen 4, 1119), the second to Louis Ber, a
professor of theology at the University of Basel (May 14, 1521; Allen 4,
1203 ) ; perhaps a third letter should be added, namely one to William Warham,
the archbishop of Canterbury (August 23, 1521; Allen 4, 1228). These
letters could have been available to Luther— or his friends— either directly
(as in the case of Allen 4, 1119) or indirectly, through circulation as
manuscript copies or as unauthorized prints (as in the case of Allen 4,
1203, 1228); see Allen 5, 1262; WA, Br 2, 389, n. 1. In these letters
Erasmus openly disapproved of Luther's thought and conduct.

6 See p. 185.

6 See pp. 40, 58.

7 Job 40:15 ff. Lufher follows Jerome in understanding Behemoth as “devil”;
see also WA, DB 3, 513.

8 According to WA, Br 2, 398, n. 4, this statement cannot be located; how-
ever in the letter of dedication of the Greek edition of the New Testament
(see p. 116), there are certain phrases from which such a statement could be
deduced; see Allen 2, 373.

9 1 Cor. 4:20. 10 Capito's and Erasmus'.

306

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

think it is flattering and keep on as if they possessed the right
to remain uncorrected and incorrigible, content that they are
feared and that no one dares to reproach them. These are the
kind of people pictured in your Plutarch’s little book on flattery . 11
But Jeremiah speaks more gravely and dreadfully of them:
“Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully .* 12
Here the Prophet speaks of the work of the sword against God’s
enemies. I, too, am very afraid, and my conscience troubles me
because I yielded in Worms 18 to your advice and that of [our]
friends, held my spirit in check, and did not show myself as an
Elijah to those idols . 14 They would hear other things, if I would
come before them again. But enough of this.

Duke John the Elder 15 at last knows where I am; so far
he has not known. My host 16 has revealed it to him confiden-
tially. But [the Duke] should keep it quiet. I am fine here, but

I am growing sluggish and languid and cold in spirit, and am
miserable . 17 Today, on the sixth day, I had elimination with such
difficulty that I almost passed out. Now I sit aching as if in
labor confinement, wounded and sore, and shall have no— or little
—rest this night. Thanks be to Christ who has not left me with-
out any relic of the holy cross . 18 I would have been healed from
all soreness if the elimination had moved more easily. But what-
ever heals in four days is wounded again by elimination . 10 I
write this not for sympathy but that you may congratulate me,
praying 20 that I may be worthy to become fervent in the Spirit.

Now is the time to pray against Satan with all our strength;
he is threatening Germany with some fatal tragedy. And in
spite of my fear that the Lord will allow him to bring it about,

II Spalatin had translated into German Plutarch's (Greek biographer and
philosopher; a.d. 46P-120?) book on How to Distinguish Between a Flatterer
and a Friend ; it was published in 1520; on Plutarch, see O.C.D., pp. 700 f.
12 Jer. 48:10 (Vulgate).

13 I.e., at the diet of 1521; see pp. 201 f., 215.

14 I Kings 18:17 ff.; perhaps also 21:17 ff.

15 Duke John; see p. 269, n. 8; see also p. 273, n. 8.

16 The castellan of the Wartburg, Hans von Berlepsch; see p. 255. n. 15.

17 See p. 28, n. 10.

18 For a similar statement, see p. 387.

19 See p. 217, n. 15; p. 257, n. 4.

20 The text does not make it clear who the subject of "praying” is, Luther
or Spalatin; this editor thinks Spalatin is the subject

307

LETTERS

until now I have been sleepy and lazy, both in praying and
resisting [Satan], so that I am angry at myself, and am a burden
to myself. Perhaps it is because I am alone and you are not help-
ing me. 21 I beg you, let us pray and watch that we do not enter
into temptation. 22 I have nothing else to write just now. You
people in Wittenberg know everything about everyone.

I rejoice that Wittenberg’s prestige is increasing, especially
that it grows while I am absent, so that the wicked man sees it
and grumbles, and his desire perishes. 23 May Christ complete that
which he has begun!

I really wish Philip 24 would also preach 25 to the people
somewhere in the city on festival days after dinner to provide a
substitute for the drinking and gambling. 26 This could become a
custom which would introduce freedom 27 and restore the form
and manners of the early church. 28 . For if we have broken all
laws of men and cast off their yokes, what difference would it
make to us that Philip is not anointed or tonsured 29 but
married? 30 Nevertheless he is truly a priest and actually does
the work of a priest, unless it is not the office of a priest to teach
the Word of God. In that case Christ himself would not be a priest,
for he taught now in synagogues, then in ships, now at the shore-
line, then in the mountains. In a word, [Christ] was always and
everywhere all things to all people at all times. Since, therefore,
Philip is called by God and performs the ministry of the Word,
as no one can deny, what difference does it make that he is not
called by those tyrants— who are bishops not of churches but of

21 For similar statements, see pp. 216, 256, 257, 267, 319, 323 f.

22 Matt. 26:41.

23 p s . 112:10.

24 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

25 On Luther's concern that Wittenberg be well supplied with preachers, see
p. 221, n. 8; see also p. 236, n. 61; p. 311.

26 In the autograph the phrase beginning “to provide” is written in the margin.

27 I.e., freedom for the laity to preach and freedom from the domination of
the clergy; this is a reference to the priesthood of all believers.

28 When the clergy held no position of spiritual monopoly.

29 I.e., ordained to the priesthood by a bishop. Anointment and tonsure were
parts of the ordination ceremony prescribed by Canon Law; see O.D.C.C., pp.
58, 1366 f.

80 Melanchthon had been married since November, 1520; see p. 166, n. 5.

508

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

horses 81 and courtiers. But I know that man’s 82 mind. He will
not yield to my persuasions. Therefore he has to be called and
driven [to preaching] by the order and pressure of the whole
congregation. For if the congregation demands and requests it,
he ought not and cannot say no. Were I present, I would by all
means work on the city council and the people so that they would
ask Philip to lecture to them privately in German on the Gospels
as he has begun to lecture in Latin, so that little by little he would
become a Germanf-speaking] bishop, as he has already become
a Latin [-speaking] bishop. I wish you would do what you can
to bring this about, because what the people need above all things
is the Word of God. Since he is incomparably rich in the Word,
you can see that it is our duty to call him and not let the Word be
cheated of its fruit; in addition the conscience urges this and God
requires it. You will be able to have this passed by the city council
quite easily with the help of Lucas 33 and Christian . 34 May Christ
compensate for my absence and silence with Melanchthon s preach-
ing and voice, to the confusion of Satan and his apostles. Origen 35
taught women privately. Why should Melanchthon not undertake
something similar, when he can and ought to do it? And this
especially since the people are thirsty and in need of such a thing.
Please don’t be moved too easily by his excusesl He will hide
behind the most beautiful fig leaves , 86 as is becoming to him. For
he ought not to seek such a duty, but he must be urged and called
by the congregation, even begged to serve and to do not what is
useful only for himself but rather what is profitable for many. I beg
you, work on this most diligently, before all other things. Consult
with friends who will help you to push this . 37

31 Due to the interweaving of state and church in the medieval and six-
teenth century society, most bishops were also secular sovereigns; if not they
at least held great secular wealth. Consequently they spent more time on
secular projects, such as hunting, riding, and, as was the case in the High
Middle Ages, even as warriors in combat.

32 Melanchthon's.

33 Lucas Cranach; see p. 201.

34 Christian During; see p. 42, n. 8.

35 Origen; see O.D.C.C., pp. 991 ff.; Patrology, pp. 223 ff.

30 An allusion to Gen. 3:7.

37 Spalatin did intervene with the city council, which in turn requested that
Melanchthon be appointed preacher at the city church; see WA, Br 2, 390,
n. 24.

309

LETTERS

Farewell, and remember me before the Lord.
From the wilderness , 88 September 9, 1521

Yours,

Martin Luther

To Nicholas von Amsdorf
Wartburg, September 9, 1521

Luther is sending some theses on monastic vows . Announcing that
he would send further material on this very important question
(see Nos. 91, 92, 94, 95), he continues to elaborate on his disagree-
ment with Karlstadt concerning the interpretation of celibacy.
Since the people of Wittenberg were not to expect his return,
Luther suggests that they call Melanchthon to preach and to teach.
On Nicholas von Amsdorf, see p. 218.

Text in Latin: W A, Br 2, 890-391.

To Nicholas Amsdorf, Licentiate of Theology 1 and a
canon at Wittenberg

Jesus

I am enclosing theses on the vows . 2 Although there is nothing
new among them for which you people might be looking, still they
will be new and shocking to [our] enemies if they are published.
Philip 3 relies on the argument that a vow should be nullified be-
cause of the impossibility of keeping it. I did not deal with this
point; and thus far I do not believe that this point can be handled
in a way that consciences could rely on it confidently and surely;
and it is this for which we are looking . 4

88 See p. 263, n. 36.

1 On this degree, see p. 264, n. 3.

2 Themata do votis; see p. 302, n. 36; perhaps a copy.

8 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3; p. 297.

4 See pp. 277 ff., 297 ff., 310 f., 321, 331 ff., 337 f., 354, 357 ff.

310

TO NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF, SEPTEMBER 9, 1521

Here I have used material which is reliable and sufficient to
assure consciences and liberate them from their vows. [That is,
I have discussed the issue of whether or not a vow was made]
in a godly or an ungodly way. I shall send other [theses ] 5 in which
the question of a legitimate and pious vow is discussed in greater
detail, that is, under what circumstances vows are to be kept. But
this is also argued on the same basis, [namely, whether or not a
vow was made] in a godly or an ungodly way.

I am grieved because of Karlstadt . 6 He can easily be refuted , 7
but an occasion would [thereby] be given to our enemies to boast
over our internal disagreement; this would be a great stumbling
block for the weak.

I have written to Spalatin that he should push the idea of
our Philip lecturing to the people in German on the Gospels;
Philip should do it on festival days and in some place like a lecture
hall . 8 Thus it would gradually come about that [in Wittenberg] the
gospel would be preached in the old manner . 9 You have a fitting
answer if someone wants to object that a layman should not preach
the gospel in a comer; answer that [Melanchthon] is doing it
under the auspices of the University , 10 and ex officio. Who could

5 Luther had changed his original plan. Instead of writing "very short ex-
planations*’ of the Themata de votis (see note 2), as he had promised
Melanchthon on September 9 (see p. 302), he now promises to send a second
set of theses on monastic vows (based, however, on the Themata). This
second series was entitled: An liceat perpetuum vovere votum ( Whether It
Is Permitted to Take a Vow Intended to be Permanently Binding). WA 8,
330 ff. It was published along with the Themata as Part II of: Indicium
Martini Lutheri de votis ( Martin Luthers Opinion on Vows) (Wittenberg:
M. Lotther, October, 1521). WA 8, 323 ff.

6 Andrew Karlstadt; see p. 79, n. 12. Luther is expressing a concern similar
to that expressed in his August 15 letter to Spalatin; see pp. 293 f.

7 1.e., Luther, realizing the weakness of Karlstadt’s argument, is convinced
that he and others could show where Karlstadt was wrong and thus put an
end to Karlstadt’s agitation for abandoning monastic vows. Yet Luther also
realizes that this might stir up trouble and even strife among the people of
Wittenberg. The Wittenberg disturbances of 1521/22 (see p. 386, n. 1) and
the clash between Luther and Karlstadt cast their shadows.

8 See pp. 308 f. Luther apparently did not think that Melanchthon should
preach in the city church but rather in a lecture hall or elsewhere.

9 I.e., as was customary in the apostolic chinch, when the exposition of God’s
Word was not restricted to the actual worship service, and the right to
preach was not restricted to "ordained” clergy, an institution of the second
century.

10 Luther wrote loco studii , i.e., on behalf of the University or in place of
the University.

311

LETTERS

prohibit him from speaking in German, and common men and
women from listening to him? Who could object if in some way
the whole town listened to his lectures— if the town understood
Latin, or if he lectured in German?

I hope you will not ignore this advice, especially since there
is no hope of my returning to you. Who knows what God intends
to accomplish through stupid me?

Farewell and pray for me. Thank you for the song. 11
September 9 , 1521

Yours,

Martin Luther, D.

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, September 17, 1521

During a visit to the Wartburg , Duke John of Saxony ( see p. 269,
n. 8) requested that Luther write an exposition of the Gospel con-
cerning the ten lepers (Luke 17:11 ff., especially vs. 14). Since
the Franciscans at Weimar had tried to prove auricular confession
on the basis of Luke 17:14, the Duke was especially interested in
Luther 9 s opinion on this passage . In this letter Luther sends
Spalatin the exposition to be forwarded to the Duke and makes
suggestions concerning the future treatment of the manuscript . He
briefly mentions a satire against the Faculty of the Sorbonne and
comments on some political developments of which he has heard.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 391-392.

Master George Spalatin: Personal

ii Cantilena, i.e., “song,” “old song,” “old story,” “gossip.” Whatever Luther
meant could not be identified.

312

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, SEPTEMBER 17, 1521

Jesus

Greetings. Duke John 1 was confronted with the passage in Luke
about the ten lepers . 2 He was told that because they were sent
by the Lord to the priests, one has to believe in confession . 8 When
he was here , 4 he requested through my host 5 that I explain this
passage so that he would have something to answer to those
gray Pharisees and hypocrites . 6 They want to anticipate my little
book On Confession 7 and try to win over the Duke beforehand
and alienate him from us through this passage, for they have heard
that the treatise On Confession is in the press. Therefore I have
arranged to send this [exposition] to you, so that you may have
it carefully copied by someone who can write well, for you have
a crowd of secretaries available who have nothing to do, and [any-
thing in] my handwriting must be kept secret. Therefore please
return this manuscript to me, since I have no other copy, and

1 Duke John of Saxony; see p. 269, n. 8.

2 Luke 17:11 ff.

3 Jesus’ command that the lepers go to the priest and show themselves as
having been cleansed was used in traditional theology ( Peter Lombard, Gabriel
Biel ) and popular religious instruction ( sermon literature ) to prove the neces-
sity of private or auricular confession and, even more, to demonstrate that
Christ himself had instituted confession; for documentation, see WA 8, 152,
n. 1; 336 f. For Luthers stand on this issue, see WA 6, 546 ff.; LW 36,
86 f., and the work mentioned in note 9.

4 This visit of Duke John to the Wartburg could not be verified. It must have
taken place shortly before September 9, for on that day Luther wrote to
Spalatin that the castellan of the Wartburg had told Duke John of his
(Luthers) presence at the Wartburg; see p. 307. Since the Duke did not see
Luther, for reasons unknown to us, his request for the exposition of the
Gospel pericope of the ten lepers came to Luther through the castellan.

6 The castellan of the Wartburg, Hans von Berlepsch; see p. 255, n. 15.
6 I.e., the Franciscans, who at that time wore gray cowls, differing from the
brown cowls worn at present; see O.D.C.C., pp. 590, 523 f. In Weimar,
one of the residences of the Electoral Saxon court, the Franciscans had the
privilege of serving the people as confessors. (James Vogt, who was the
Elector’s father confessor, was a Franciscan; see p. 33, n. 5.) Disturbed
by the consequences Luther’s little book On Confession (see p. 246, n. 10)
might have, they apparently petitioned the Electoral court to stop its print-
ing. In personal interviews with the Duke, they must have based their
arguments on Luke 17:14. On August 15 the Franciscans of Weimar in-
formed Elector Frederick that they had the Pope’s specific order to oppose
Luther’s heresies; they asked whether or not the Elector would support them
in this task. See O. Clemen (ed.), Supplementa Melanchthoniana, 6, I, 154.

7 See p. 246, n. 10.

313

LETTERS

since it could not be given to anyone else for copying, lest I be
betrayed. Although I have treated this passage in the little book
on confession , 8 yet I had such a low opinion [of the arguments
of our opponents] that a careful refutation seemed unnecessary
to me. I did not believe that anyone could be so stupid that he
would seriously want to prove confession from this passage. And
so I have now treated this passage carefully and in detail, and
I have refuted their nonsense. If you think it should be printed , 9
then furnish it with the preface 10 I am including and dedicate
it in my name to whomever you want, either Haugold von Ein-
siedel , 11 or to someone else, as you see fit 12 —only by no means to
the Duke; you can see the reason for this. The main reason why
I would allow it to be printed is the support it can give to the
treatise On Confession , and also because it contains almost a
summary of Christian faith and fully depicts a pious life, so that
the Germans would receive a foretaste of the Postil . 13 I would
have added what Philip 14 misses in the treatise [On Confession ],
but I cannot understand what he means. If you do not think it
should be printed, then destroy the preface and hand the rest
over to Duke John. Please return the manuscript to me.

I believe you have heard how the Parisians have mocked

8 See WA 8, 152.

9 This exposition was published as Evangelium von den zehn Aussatzigen
(The Gospel Concerning the Ten Lepers ) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, 1521).
WA 8, 344 ff.

See WA 8, 340 ff.

11 Haugold von Einsiedel studied philosophy, theology, and canon and secular
law at the University of Leipzig in 1476/77. Dissatisfied with the instruction
he received, he left Leipzig and matriculated in the University of Ingolstadt
in 1484, where he was tutored by the famous Humanist and jurist John
Riedner. Haugold’s ambition to round out his Humanistic education through
a trip to Italy did not materialize due to his father's insistence that he seme
down. After 1489 he held various ecclesiastical benefices. Having obtained
papal dispensation from celibacy, Haugold married and entered the full-time
administrative service of Electoral Saxony. Apparently he died in the late
summer of 1522. See ARG 8 (1911), 1 ff.

12 Spalatin dedicated this exposition to three Electoral Saxon officials who
were stout supporters of Luther's cause: Haugold von Einsiedel (see note
11), Hans von Dolzig, the master of the court and marshal of Saxony (see
ARG 7 [1910], 404 ff.), and Berhard von Hirschfeld (see p. 33, n. 2).

13 See pp. 237 ff.

14 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3. What Melanchthon had in mind could
not be determined; see also p. 297.

814

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, OCTOBER 7, 1521

their own sophists on my account . 15 This priesthood of Baal and
Peor , 16 which is condemned by the Lord through the voice of
Paul , 17 is beginning to be despised. God be praised.

The plans of the Pope and Emperor are not yet fully de-
veloped . 18 God leads both as they deserve, and where they
should be led. In the meantime, however, they don't care for this
until the iniquity of the Amorites is completed . 19 I rejoice and
wish the Emperor this good fortune , 20 but only because of God's
hidden plans.

Farewell and pray for me.

September 17, 1521 Martin Luther

Augustinian

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, October 7, 1521

Acknowledging a shipment from Spalatin, Luther reports that he
is once again in good health. He comments briefly on some cor-
respondence matters and urges that Melanchthon leave Wittenberg,
should the plague break out there. He tells Spalatin that he will

15 Luther is referring to a satire supposedly written by the University of Paris
as a rebuttal to Melanchthon's Defense ( see p. 258, n. 7 ) ; for bibliographical
information, see WA 8, 264. The real author, who is unknown, must have
been among Luther's followers. He ridiculed the Sorbonne Faculty and its
proceedings against Luther by taking Melanchthon's Defense apart in a way
similar to the way the Sorbonne had dealt with Luther, but let the Parisians
state that they did this without biblical basis, and so on. According to
Luther's statement above, he must not have been aware that this satire had
originated among his followers, but believed that it originated among the
Parisians themselves.

16 Num. 25:3; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10.

17 It is not possible to establish the identity of the scriptural reference Luther
had in mind.

18 Luther is probably referring to the alliance between Pope Leo X ( see p.
100) and Charles V (see pp. 175 f.) of May 29, 1521, which was intended to
guarantee a united front between the Emperor and the Pope against France.
io Gen. 15:16.

20 I.e., the alliance with the Pope, whereby the Emperor hoped to gain the
Pope's support, not realizing the Pope's true motives.

315

LETTERS

not be restrained from attacking the Archbishop of Mainz for the
sale of indulgences at Halle . In a postscript Luther voices his
opinion of private mass .

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 395.

To my friend George Spalatin, a servant of Christ
Jesus

Greetings. Thanks for your last shipment . 1 At last my behind and
my bowels have reconciled themselves to me . 2 Therefore I need no
further medication , 3 and I am again completely healthy as before.
Thanks be to GodI

I could not send a letter to Gerbel 4 with this messenger, since
he was in such a great hurry, also not to Taubenheim . 5 I had to
absorb your material and pour out this letter in one and the same
hour. I shall write in greater detail at another time. I implore
you not to let Philip 6 stay in Wittenberg if the plague breaks out
there . 7 That head must be preserved, so that the Word, which the
Lord has entrusted to him for the salvation of souls, may not
perish . 8

I shall not let myself be restrained from privately and publicly
attacking the idol at Mainz 9 with regard to his “brother at Halle . 10
Farewell in the greatest hurry.

October 7, 1521 Martin Luther

1 This “shipment” could not be verified. Perhaps Gerbel’s letter was enclosed;
see below and p. 318, n. 2. Perhaps Spalatin sent Luther some communi-
cation about Capito’s visit; see note 10.

2 See p. 217, n. 15.

8 See p. 268.

4 Nicholas Gerbel; see pp. 317 f.

5 John von Taubenheim; see p. 163, n. 3.

6 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

7 In the fall and early winter of 1521 the plague broke out in Wittenberg,
so that on November 20 Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.) ordered the
evacuation of the University; see WA, Br 2, 395, n. 2.

8 For a similar statement, see p. 119.

9 I.e., Cardinal Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz; see pp. 44 f.

10 The Archbishop of Mainz, in a desperate attempt to bolster his finances,
exhibited the relics kept in a church in Halle in mid-September, 1521, and
invited the people to obtain the rich indulgences promised to those who
visited the exhibition. Soon it became known that Luther would make a

316

TO NICHOLAS GERBEL, NOVEMBER 1, 1521

There is a priest in the castle here who daily celebrates mass
with great idolatry, I am afraid, if nothing worse. 11 If only he and
all such private mass 12 celebrants were at least restricted, if [their
office] can’t be completely abolished immediately. It is a crime
for the mass to be celebrated privately, since it is called Synaxis 13
and communion. The order of Christ and Paul 14 commands that
it should be celebrated often in public and with a congregation
gathered for the proclamation of the Word, that is, in remem-
brance of [Christ]. O Antichrist! 15

100

To Nicholas Gerbel
Wartburg, November 1, 1521

This is a long overdue letter in which Luther expresses his ap-
preciation not only for GerbeVs friendship but also for his interest
in Luthers work. Replying to GerbeVs inquiry about his literary
work , Luther gives a detailed report on his writings.

Nicholas Gerbel of Pforzheim (1485? -1560) studied theology
at the University of Cologne and at the Dominican college of the
University of Tubingen. In October , 1514, he was graduated by

public protest. At the end of September the Archbishop sent Wolfgang
Capito (see p. 305, n. 2) to Luther’s friends in Wittenberg, to Sp alatin,
and to^ Elector Frederick (see pp. 49 f.) to ask their help in preventing
Luther’s attack. Capito had already established contact with Spalatin
through an earlier letter; see p. 305, n. 4. Although while in Saxony Capito
must have received assurance that there would be an attempt to stop Luther,
he was not too satisfied with his visit, as can be seen from his October 14
letter to Erasmus of Rotterdam; see Allen 4, 1241. Luther must have heard
of this visit; perhaps Spalatin had written about it (see note 1).

11 This postscript is not a part of the autograph but is found on a separate
sheet of paper and was written with a different pen. Although the WA, Br
editor concedes the possibility that this postscript could belong to another
letter written from the Wartburg, he nevertheless added it to this letter.

12 See p. 281, n. 26.

13 Greek word for “assembly,” which was, especially in the Greek-speaking
Early Church of the East, the traditional term for the Eucharist; see
O.D.C.C., p. 1314.

14 Luke 22:14 ff. and parallels; I Cor. 11:26 ff.

15 See p. 114, n. 16.

317

LETTERS

the University of Bologna as a Doctor of Canon Law. Although he
was drenched in traditional Scholasticism , he became an admirer
of Reuchlin (whom he supported against the University of Cologne;
see p. 10, n. 11) and of Erasmus (whom he visited in Basel in the
fall of 1516 for the purpose of assisting in correcting the proofs
of the Greek text of the New Testament; see p. 23). In 1515
Gerbel came to Strassburg and worked as critic, corrector, and
editor for the Schurer publishing house. He also practiced law
and was a legal consultant to the bishop, the cathedral chapter, and
the city council. It is not clear when his friendship with Luther
began, but as early as May, 1521, he had already sent several letters
to Luther. For a while Gerbel acted as a liaison man between
Luther and the clergy and the city council of Strassburg, although
he stayed mainly in the background. In the eucharistic controversy
between Luther and Zwingli, Gerbel openly supported Luther ; this
was exceptional if one realizes that Strassburg was almost com-
pletely under Zwingli s influence, at least at the beginning of the
controversy. He spent his later years studying history and geography.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 396-398.

To Nicholas Gerbel, distinguished by education and Christian
piety, a lawyer, and my most faithful friend in Christ

Jesus

Greetings in Christ. Your letter, my kindest Gerbel, which you
wrote to me on the vigil of Pentecost , 1 reached me finally on St.
Michael's Day , 2 and I write this letter to you today, on All Saints'
Day. For goodness' sake , 3 when will it reach you? Maybe at
another Pentecost, or maybe not at all! 4 Thus you see the reason

1 On the term “vigil,'' see p. 76, n. 18. Gerbel’s letter was dated May 18;
see WA, Br 2, No. 411.

2 September 29. Perhaps Spalatin had forwarded Gerbel's letter in the “ship-
ment” Luther acknowledged on October 7; see p. 316.

8 Some printed editions have nescio, i.e., “I don’t know.”

4 Luther wrote Cdendas Graecas, i.e., “to the Greek Calends.” In the
Roman calendar, the Calends is the first day of the month. However in the
Roman calendar there was no month by the name of “Greek”; and the
Greek calendar did not use the term “Calends” to designate a specific day.
Consequently the day “Greek Calends” does not exist. On the term

318

TO NICHOLAS GERBEL, NOVEMBER 1, 1521

for my silence; it is evident that you may ascribe my silence to
fate, that is, to the hidden will of God.

Yet I believe that in the meantime you found out from other
people about the state of my affairs, which you ask about 6 with
such great anxiety and friendship. I have withdrawn from the
public and thus obeyed the advice of friends . 6 I have done this
against my will, and I am uncertain whether with this action I
have done something which is pleasing to God. I certainly thought
I should expose my neck to the public fury ; 7 but [my friends]
were of another opinion . 8 Upon their suggestion, armed horsemen
captured me along the way in a fake attack, and placed me in a
safe spot where I am now treated in the kindest way . 9

But you may believe me, in this leisurely solitude I am exposed
to a thousand devils . 10 It is so much easier to fight the devil
incarnate— that is, people— than the spirits of iniquity in heavenly
places . 11 Often I fall, but the right hand of the Most High raises
me again. Therefore I yearn again and again for companionship . 12
But I do not want to go back unless the Lord has called me
back.

It is not safe for me 13 to send my little books to you, but I
have written on this matter to Spalatin, asking him to take care
of it . 14 In the meantime a little book on the Antichrist , 15 Against
Catharinus, has come off the press , 16 one Against Latomus at

“Calendae Graecae '* and the explanation drawn from passages of classical
authors recorded in Erasmus* Adagia, see Clericus 2, 214, B f.

5 In his letter of May 18; see note 1.
e See pp. 201, 215, 307.

* See pp. 125, 201, 215, 221, 228, 232, 249.

8 See p. 201, n. 3.

» See pp. 255, 294, 357.

10 See p. 28, n. 10.

11 Eph. 6:12.

12 Luther used a word which can also mean ‘life in public'*; if one is aware
of his statements concerning his life in public, however (see p. 119, n. 7; p.
308, n. 21; pp. 232, 267), then it is obvious that Luther meant companionship
here.

18 The translation is based on a text variation offered by some printed editions
of this letter.

14 See p. 323.

16 See p. 114, n. 16.

18 See p. 291, n. 10.

319

LETTERS

Louvain, 17 one in German On Confession , 18 also the 67th Psalm
explained in German, 19 the [ Magnificat ] of Mary explained in Ger-
man, 20 and the 36th Psalm explained as comfort for the congre-
gation in Wittenberg. 21 Philip 22 has published a Defense in my
behalf against the Parisians, to which I have added a German
preface. It is already out; [and that takes care of that]. 23 He also
has the theological Loci 24 in the press, a book worthy of Philip.
My German exposition of the Epistles and the Gospels for each
Sunday of the church year 25 is being printed. I have also com-
pleted a public rebuke of the Cardinal of Mainz, because he has
again erected the idol of indulgences, [and this time] at Halle. 26
The explanation of the Gospel concerning the ten lepers is also
ready. 27 All this is in German. I am bom for my Germans, whom
I want to serve. 28 I am eager to launch a public attack against
the universities, but I have not yet made definite plans. 29 I have
made up my mind not to write a commentary on the Gospel of
St. Matthew. 30 In Wittenberg, however, I had begun to preach
to the people from the pulpit on both Testaments, starting at the
beginning of each; in Genesis I had progressed to chapter 32, in

17 See p. 229, n. 3; in some of the printed editions of this letter, this work
is not mentioned.

18 See p. 246, n. 10.

19 See p. 229, n. 5.

20 See p. 225, n. 17; p. 254, n. 4.

21 See p. 252, n. 10.

22 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

23 See p. 258, n. 7. Luther apparently has abandoned the idea of writing
against the Sorbonne, which he had considered in his August 3 letter to
Melanchthon (see p. 289, n. 37); see also note 29.

24 See p. 232, n. 21.

25 See pp. 237 ff.

26 Luther is referring to his Against the Idol at Halle; for details, see p. 316,
n. 10; pp. 344 ff.

27 See p. 314, n. 9.

28 About a month later Luther decided to translate the Bible; see WA, DB

6, XL.

29 What Luther meant here is not clear. Having abandoned his idea of writ-
ing against the Sorbonne (see note 23), Luther was perhaps thinking of a
general rebuttal of the universities that had condemned him.

30 This was written in reply to Gerbel’s May 18 letter (see note 1), in which
he expressed his wish that Luther would complete a commentary on the Gospel
of St. Matthew. Somehow Gerbel was of die opinion that in the spring of
1521 Luther had been working on such a commentary; see WA, Br 2, 343.

320

TO NICHOLAS GERBEL, NOVEMBER 1, 1521

the Gospels to the voice of John the Baptist . 81 There my voice was
silenced . 82 Now you know everything about which you asked.

I received your previous letter, which you sent to me at
Worms, only after a long time in this solitude . 33 I have been ex-
tremely pleased with the bride, and also with the bridesman who
has adorned her for me and presented her to me. She has borne
to me the children I mentioned above . 34 You will judge whether
the offspring are similar to the mother . 35 She 36 is still fertile and
highly pregnant. Christ willing, she will give birth to a son 37
who will destroy the papists, sophists, monks , 38 and Herodians
with a rod of iron . 39 For Philip and I have a powerful conspiracy
concerning the vows of monks and priests; they have to be
abolished and made void . 40 Oh, that blasphemous Antichrist and
his armor! How Satan has devastated all the mysteries of Christian
piety through him!

Please greet your wife; may she love you and in turn be loved
by you. You lucky man, that you have by an honorable marriage
conquered that unclean celibacy which is reprehensible 41 because

31 For these sermons on Genesis and Matthew, see WA 9, 320 ff. Perhaps it
can be assumed that the Shorter Postil , which Luther asked Spalatin for on
June 10 (see p. 237), contained material for some of these sermons.

32 Due to the trip to Worms (see p. 197), Luther had had to interrupt these
sermons.

33 Luther received this (not extant) letter from Gerbel about May 12; see

p. 222.

34 The “bride” was Gerbel’s edition of the Greek text of the New Testament
which Gerbel must have sent with the letter mentioned in note 33. The
“bridesman” was Gerbel, who gave away this “bride” to Luther. On Gerbel’s
edition, see WA, DB 6, xl. The “children” that came of Luther's “marriage”
with the “bride” Gerbel had given to him are the writings listed above.

35 1.e., the “bride” mentioned in note 34. The text is unclear here. One of
the printed editions offers this text: “an proles sit nostri similis,” i.e., “whether
the offspring are similar to us.” Some editions instead offer this text: “an
proles sit matri similis, ,f i.e., “whether the offspring are similar to the mother.”

36 I.e., the ‘"bride” mentioned in note 34.

37 I.e., the next “child” expected from Luther s union with the “bride,” i.e.,
his study of the New Testament. On the basis of the following sentence it is
clear that Luther is thinking of his attacks against monastic vows; see p. 302,
nn. 38, 37; p. 311, n. 5; p. 331, n. 5.

88 Luther wrote religiosistae ; since religiosi is a common term for monks, it
is adopted here.

38 Ps. 2:9.

4 ° See p. 328.

41 One of the printed editions of this letter offers a text which has to be
translated: “that you have recently [instead of “unclean”] conquered by an
honorable marriage that celibacy which is reprehensible.”

321

LETTERS

it causes either a constant burning or unclean pollutions. Suffer
whatever this way of life brings, since it is instituted by God, and
be grateful to him. That most miserable celibacy of young men
and women daily presents such great horrors to me that even now
nothing sounds worse to my ears than the words “nun,” “monk,
and “priest.” I consider marriage to be a paradise, even if it has
to endure greatest poverty.

Greet also the others whom you have mentioned to me, Otto
Brunfels , 42 Caspar Uringer , 43 Luke Bathod , 44 and all who agree
with you in the gospel and condemn the “worship of the angels,
as the Apostle [Paul] says . 45 Farewell, stay very happy, and pray
for me.

From my wilderness , 46 1521 47 Martin Luther

42 Otto Brunfels of Mainz (1488P-1534) was a Carthusian who in the fall of
1521 left the Carthusian house outside Strassburg, due to difficulties which
originated in his sharp criticism of the papsd church.. He stayed in Strass-
burg for a short time. He had in mind to go to Wittenberg (see WA, Br 2,
398, n. 30) but abandoned this plan to enter the service of von Hutten (see
p. 163, n. 1). After a period of restless wandering he finally settled down
in Strassburg in 1524, where he was made headmaster of the town school,
and where he studied medicine and botany. He was deeply attached to von
Hutten, whom he defended in a sharp attack on Erasmus. Although he had
some connections with Melanchthon and Luther, he openly supported the
Reformed branch of the Reformation. With Zwingli’s help he was appointed
physician in Bern, where he died in 1534. See WA, Br 2, 160, n. 3; Allen
5, 1405, Introduction.

43 One of Gerbers friends in Strassburg, of whom little is known; see WA, Br
2, 344, n. 5.

44 A priest and teacher in Strassburg who later was in charge of charities
there; see WA, Br 2, 344, n. 7. Apparently he had brought Gerbel’s letter
(see note 33) to Luther in Worms; since Luther had already left, he de-
livered the letter to Spalatin, who in turn forwarded it to the Wartburg. The
letter finally reached Luther about May 12; see p. 222; WA, Br 2, 341.

43 Col. 2:18.

46 See p. 263, n. 36.

47 One of the printed editions of this letter has 1522 as the date; the content
of the letter, however, makes it obvious that this date is incorrect. On the
date November 1, All Saints* Day, see p. 318.

322

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 1, 1521

101

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, November 1, 1521

Luther asks for Spalatin s help in handling some correspondence
matters , and for Spalatin s prayers that Christ not desert him in his
struggles against many demons.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 399.

To my dearest friend, George Spalatin, a servant of Christ,

and friend

Jesus

Greetings. Please take care, excellent Spalatin, that the [enclosed
material ] 1 is forwarded to Philip . 2 Also I am finally sending my
letter to Gerbel . 3 You see 4 * that he would like to have my books ; 6
in this we need your help and effort. I cannot do it myself. I have
drawn up an index for him of all [the books that are completed ]; 6
if you would like to, you may take care of the rest . 7 Please forward
the letter to Taubenheim, too . 8

At the moment I have nothing else to write. So it is up to
you, who are out in the world, to write to me— since I am now
finally and really a monk . 9 Yet I am not actually a monk, because

1 See pp. 345 ff.

2 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

3 See pp. 317 ff. The text does not make it clear whether Luther enclosed the
letter for Spalatin to forward to Gerbel, or whether he sent it directly to
Gerbel; see p. 328, n. 19.

4 I.e., Spalatin could see this when he read the letter to Gerbel, if Luther
had enclosed it. He also could have read it in Gerbel’s May 18 letter (see

p. 318, n. 1), in which Gerbel asked for Luther's books (see WA, Br 2, 343),
and which apparently had reached the Wartburg via Spalatin; see p. 322,
n. 44.

6 See p. 319; WA, Br 2, 343.

6 See pip. 319 f.

7 1.e., ship the books to Gerbel; see p. 319.

8 John von Taubenheim; see p. 316; p. 163, n. 3; this letter apparently is
not extant.

9 I.e., a hermit.

323

LETTERS

I have many evil and astute demons with me; they “amuse" me,
as one says, but in a disturbing way . 10 Do pray that Christ does
not desert me in the end.

Farewell.

November 1 , 1521 Martin Luther

102

To the Augustinians in Wittenberg
Wartburg, November, 1521

In this letter Luther is dedicating his November , 1521 , book against
the mass to the Augustinians in Wittenberg . It is available in a
Latin and a German version , both prepared by Luther himself:
De abroganda missa privata Martini Lutheri sententia (Martin Lu-
thers Judgment on the Abrogation of the Private Mass) (Witten-
berg: M. Lotther, January, 1522). W A 8, 411 ff. The Latin version
of the letter of dedication was signed on November 1 (see WA 8,
412). The Latin version of the book was completed on November
11; see p. 327. The German edition is entitled: Vom Missbrauch der
Messen (On the Abuse of the Mass) (Wittenberg: J. Grunenberg,
January or February, 1522). WA 8, 482 ff. The German letter of
dedication was signed on November 25.

In his early writings Luther concentrated primarily on the
abuses of the Roman church in connection with the sacrament of
penance. From 1519 on his attention was also directed to the
Lords Supper. He especially criticized the idea of the mass as
a sacrifice (see WA 6, 365 ff.; LW 35, 94 ff.; WA 6, 512; LW 36,
35 f.) and the withholding of the cup from the laity; see pp. 143 f.
At that time, however, Luther was not yet ready to draw any
conclusions from his criticism and apply them to reorganizing the
communion liturgy. He still hoped that this could be worked out
in co-operation with the officials of the church, once a new under-
standing was agreed upon. After the Diet of Worms Luther
realized that the hierarchy of the Roman church not only would

10 For similar statements, see p. 28, n. 10.

324

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 11, 1521

never co-operate but would attempt to suppress both his basic
understanding of the Lord's Supper and the necessary liturgical
reforms . During the days at the Wartburg his ideas ripened, and
on August 1, 1521, he and Melanchthon discussed reorganizing
the communion liturgy , favoring communion in “both kinds ” At
the same time he affirmed that he would never again celebrate a
private mass; see pp. 280 f., 317 . During his absence from Witten-
berg some of Luthers colleagues ( especially Andrew Karlstadt; see
p. 277, n. 3) and some Augustinian friars under the leadership of
Gabriel Z willing (see p. 39, n. 3) took the initiative and refused
to celebrate mass in the traditional way; consequently the prior of
the monastery, Conrad Helt (see p. 125, n. 9), entirely stopped
the celebration of the mass in the Augustinian monastery; see p.
281, n. 24. The liturgical reforms began with abolishing private
mass (see p. 281, n. 26) and giving both elements to all communi-
cants . This is the background of this letter.

See WA 8, 398 ff. For Luthers thoughts on liturgical prob-
lems, see Jaroslav Pelikan, “ Luther and the Liturgy More About
Luther (“Martin Luther Lectures ,” Vol. II [Decorah, Iowa, 1958]),
pp. 3 ff.; U. S. Leupold (trans.), V. Vajta’s Luther on Worship
(Philadelphia, 1958).

For the translation of the German version of the letter of dedi-
cation (WA 8, 482 f.) by F. C. Ahrens, see LW 36, 133-135.

103

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, November 11, 1521

Luther sharply criticizes Spalatin and the Elector for their timidity;
affirming his determination to attack the Archbishop of Mainz for
the part he had in the indulgence sale at Halle (see p. 316, n. 10),
Luther orders Spalatin to turn over his (Luthers) manuscript of
the attack against the Archbishop to Melanchthon. Luther also
encloses his manuscript On the Abrogation of Private Mass (see
p. 324), and refuses to write anything in the nature of a spiritual

325

LETTERS

consolation for the Elector . He informs Spalatin of the work on
the book on monastic vows (see p. 331 , n. 5).

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 402-403; translation based on S-J 2,
63-65.

Mr. George Spalatin, disciple of Christ, my friend in the faith

Jesus

Greetings. I have hardly ever read a letter that displeased me
more than your last one. 1 Not only did I put off my reply, but I
had decided not to answer you at all. To begin with, I will not put
up with your statement that the Sovereign 2 will not allow any-
thing to be written against Mainz 3 or anything that could disturb
the public peace. I would rather lose you, the Sovereign himself, and
the whole world [than be quiet]. If I have resisted [the] creator,
the pope, why should I yield to his creature? 4 Your idea about
not disturbing the public peace is beautiful, but will you allow
the eternal peace of God to be disturbed by the wicked and
sacrilegious actions of that son of perdition? 5 Not so, Spalatin!
Not so, Elector! 6 For the sake of the sheep of Christ, we must
resist that most atrocious wolf 7 with all our strength, as an ex-
ample to others. Yes, I put out the little book against him. 8 It
was already completed when your letter arrived. The letter has
not influenced me to change anything in it, though I had in mind
to leave it to Philips 9 judgment to change it as he saw fit. Be
sure to give the book to Philip and do not dissuade him from

iThis letter is not extant; one may only guess at its content from Luther’s
answer here. The letter apparently was the result of Capito’s visit to Electoral
Saxony (see p. 316, n. 10) and the insight Spalatin had gained into Against
the Idol at HaUe (see note 8).

2 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

3 Cardinal Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz; see pp. 44 f.

4 The pope had “created,” i.e., appointed Albrecht to his position.

5 I.e., Albrecht; see note 3. He disturbed God’s eternal peace with the sale
of indulgences at Halle; see p. 316, n. 10.

6 Elector Frederick.

7 I.e., Albrecht; see note 3.

8 Against the Idol at HaUe; see pp. 316, 344 ff.

9 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3; pp. 344 ff.

326

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 11, 1521

publishing it. This question is settled, and I will not listen to you.

The fact that we and our friends have a bad reputation with
our opponents or with those who have too much worldly wisdom
in divine things ought not disturb you. For you know that Christ
and the Apostle [Paul] were not men-pleasers. I haven’t heard
our party being accused of any crime as yet, but only of despising
impiety and false doctrines. Of course I do not like the conduct
of the students who received the legate of the Antonian Order
in such a terrible way . 10 But who can hold everyone in check
everywhere and at all times? Are [our opponents] to do no wrong
at all? Even the disciples had to endure the disgrace of Judas
Iscariot, and the wicked are tolerated all the time in the communi-
ties. Of us alone is it required that [among us] no dog growl.
For goodness’ sake, do you expect me to apologize to everyone
who will be displeased with Wittenberg? What would be more
impossible?

It will not destroy the gospel if a few of our people sin
against propriety. As for those who are alienated from the Word
because of this, they have not been adherents of the Word in the
first place, but of the glory of the Word. He who adheres to the
Word for the sake of the Word will not be tom from it— not even
by the gates of hell . 11 He who is alienated, let him be alienated.
Why does he not look at those things among us which are better
and stronger? Why does he look only at those things which are
worse and weaker? Does anybody blame Philip and his friends
for this offense? 12 Then why condemn all because of a part? It
is a smaller sin to hiss at an impious preacher than to accept his
doctrine; but the latter is praised [by our enemies], the former
is pronounced unforgiveable. And do you fear these judges and
their judgments and think the gospel will be destroyed because of
such foolish talk?

In the little book I am sending, I approve the abrogation of
the [private] masses . 13 I have not been able to prepare a con-

10 In October the students of Wittenberg rioted against the Lichtenberg dele-
gation of the Hospital Brothers of St. Anthony (see O.D.C.C., p. 65); see
WA, Br 2, 403, n. 2.

11 Matt. 16:18.

12 See note 10.

13 See p. 324. Luther is now sending the manuscript of the Latin version.

327

LETTERS

solation, 14 nor do I see the necessity for it, since I have already
dealt with this subject in the Tessaradecas . 1B Why don’t you give
him 16 that, or even better, why don’t you urge him to read the
Gospels and the Passion of Christ, for there is no better consola-
tion than that? Do I have to write a new consolation for every case
that may arise? What will [our] opponents say [about this weak-
ness]? While saying this, I am hoping that Philips consolation 17
will suffice. I think [the Electors] illness of soul will have passed
away in the meantime, so that my consolation would come too
late anyway, and so be useless. Also there is no danger that the
Elector will fall into impiety, for were that the case it would not
be safe to put off the matter or neglect it. The [theme] on which
I am now working, however, concerns the perdition of souls. For
I have decided to attack monastic vows and to free the young
people from that hell of celibacy, totally unclean and condemned
as it is through its burning and pollutions. 15 I am writing partly
because of my own experience and partly because I am indignant.
May you take this in good spirit. For I have not just one Satan
with me, or rather against me; sometimes I am alone, sometimes
I am not alone.

Farewell for now, and greet all our friends! I had already
written to Gerbel before I received your last letter, 19 and it was
all closed up and sealed.

November 11, 1521

Yours,

Martin Luther

14 Spalatin must have asked Luther ( perhaps in the [not extant] letter men-
tioned in note 1) for a letter or little book of spiritual consolation for Elector
Frederick (see note 2).

15 Tessaradecas consolatoria (The Fourteen of Consolation ); see p. 134, n. 10.

16 Elector Frederick.

17 Spalatin originally asked Melanchthon to write a little book of spiritual
consolation. Melanchthon in turn suggested to Spalatin that it would be better
to approach Luther for it; see C.R. 1, 455. It seems that this consolation was
never written.

18 See pp. 321 f.; p. 331, n. 5.

19 See p. 323; perhaps Spalatin had asked Luther to extend greetings to
Gerbel. On the basis of this statement, one could argue that Luther sent the
letter to Gerbel directly, and not via Spalatin (see p. 323, n. 3). Apparently
Spalatin had asked Luther to extend greetings to Gerbel; since the letter was
already sealed, the greetings could not be included, and the letter was sent
off from the Wartburg without Spala tin's greetings. Had Luther sent the

328

TO HANS LUTHER, NOVEMBER 21, 1521

104

To Hans Luther
Wartburg, November 21, 1521

With this letter Luther dedicates his book On Monastic Vows to
his father Hans Luther . Discussing his entrance into the monas-
tery in the light of the Fourth Commandment, Luther shows how
monastic vows are contrary to Scripture . He emphasizes that the
authority of parents is nullified only when it conflicts with the
authority and calling of Christ, which is not the case, Luther says,
when a monastic vow is taken against the will, or without the
consent, of the parents .

On Luthers family, Schwiebert (p. 102) says, “All attempts
at tracing the ancestral heritage of Martin Luther have ended in
failure because of the scarcity of existing sources The Luders,
Ludhers, or Lutters, lived as Erbzinsleute in Mohra/ Thuringia,
south of Eisenach; they were free peasants who owned their land
for the payment of the Z ins or ground-rent. To insure continuous
holding of the undivided Bauernhof or farming-estate in the same
family, the youngest son by custom and law was heir to the estate.
In about 1480 Luthers grandfather Heine Luther is known to have
been farming in Mohra. He had at least four sons: Gross-Hans,
Luther’s father; Klein-Hans, Veit, and Heinz, Luthers uncles.
Gross-Hans married Margareth Lindemann of Eisenach, 1 and they
had ten children. Since Gross-Hans could not inherit the estate,
he moved to Eisleben to work in the copper mines ; here Martin
was born. In 1484 Luthers parents moved to Mansfeld where they
stayed for the rest of their lives. Gross-Hans died on May 29, 1530.

letter to Spalatin to forward to Gerbel, Spalatin could have included the
greetings himself.

1 On Luther’s mother, see Theologische Studien und Kritiken, LIV (1881),
684 ff.; Archiv fur S ippenforschung, 1935. The maiden name of Luther’s
mother has been controversial for some time; she is also called a Ziegler. The
Zieglers were an old family in Mohra; it was assumed that “Ziegler” was a
professional name meaning brick manufacturer, and that her real maiden name
was Margaret, the daughter of the Ziegler Lindenmann. H. Bomkamm (in:

W. Doberstein, T. G. Tappert [trans.], H. Boehmer’s Road to Reformation
Philadelphia, 1946], pp. 4 f. ; suggests that this could be a confusion with Lu-
ther's grandmother, so that Heine Luder would have been married to a Ziegler.

329

LETTERS

In Mansfeld, which was at that time the heart of the copper
mining industry, the Luders sought their fortune in mining and
made it. Through hard work, thriftiness, and honesty Gross-Hans
made his way from hired mine hand to renter, co-owner, and
owner of mines and furnaces, and from an immigrant to the city
to a position comparable to a present-day alderman . By 1508/09
the Luders had gained the respect of their fellow-citizens and
some wealth ?

A web of legends and assumptions cloud Martins childhood
and his relationship to his parents. Much has been written about
the strictness in which he was raised, and how this could have
influenced him. A recent study 2 3 4 even uses psychoanalysis in an
attempt to explain Luthers life and thought and sees in a “split
father-image * and an “anti-mother complex” the key to many
thoughts and phenomena in the Reformers life. Exciting as such
an undertaking may be, the sources are too scarce and too am-
biguous to justify it from a historical basis. All that can be said is
that Martin was raised in a poor, pious, stem, and thrifty home,
where pennies counted *—and where a college education was con-
sidered a luxury far beyond the means available. And yet Gross-
Hans sent his son to college instead of putting him to work in the
mines, a fact which might show the high regard he had for him.
On the basis of the few remarks that are available, Luther held his
father in high regard throughout his life.

On Gross-Hans, see Zeitschrift des Harz-Vereins 39 (1906),
169 ff.

Text in Latin: WA 8, 573-576; translation based on S-J 2,
65-71.

To Hans Luther, my Father, I, Martin Luther, your son,
send greetings in Christ

2 It seems doubtful, however, whether one can call Luther’s parents capitalists
or big business people of a small town as Schwiebert (pp. 107 f.), Erikson (see
note 3), and others do.

8 E. H. Erikson, Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History
(New York, 1958).

4 Bainton ( pp. 22 ff . ) gives a good evaluation of the home in which Luther
grew up.

330

TO HANS LUTHER, NOVEMBER 21, 1521

This book 5 I have decided to dedicate to you, dearest Father.
[I do not intend to make] your name famous in the world and to
glory in the flesh, which would be contrary to the teaching of St.
Paul . 6 Rather my purpose is to recall, in a short preface, what
took place between you and me in order to indicate to the pious
reader the argument and the content of this book, together with
an example.

To begin with, I wish you to know that your son has reached
the point where he is altogether persuaded that there is no thin g
holier, nothing more important, nothing more scrupulously to be
observed than God’s commandment . 7 But here you will say, “Have
you been so unfortunate as ever to doubt this, and have you only
now learned that this is so?” Most unfortunately indeed I not only
doubted it, but I did not at all know that it is so; and if you will
permit me, I am ready to show you that this ignorance was com-
mon to both of us.

It is now almost sixteen years since I became a monk , 8 taking
the vow without your knowledge and against your will. In your
paternal love you were fearful about my weakness because I was
then a youth, just entering my twenty-second year (that is, to use
St. Augustine’s words, I was still “clothed in hot youth ”), 9 and
you had learned from numerous examples that this way of life
turned out sadly for many. You were determined, therefore, to
tie me down with an honorable and wealthy marriage . 10 This fear
of yours, this care, this indignation against me was for a time
implacable. [Your] friends tried in vain to persuade you that if
you wished to offer something to God, you ought to give your
dearest and your best. The Lord, meanwhile, was dinning in your
ears that Psalm verse: “God knows the thoughts of men, that they

5 De votis monasticis Martini Lutheri indicium ( Martin Luthers Opinion on
Monastic Vows) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, February, 1522). WA 8, 577 ff.

6 Gal. 6:13.

7 In this case the Fourth Commandment.

8 Luther entered the monastery in July of 1505; see p. 3.

9 St. Augustine’s Confessions (see Patrology, pp. 499 f.), II, 3. MPL 32, 677.

10 As far as this editor can see, this seems to be the only reference from which
the marriage plans his father had for Luther can be deduced. These plans
seem to be quite in agreement with the father’s ambition to see young Martin
in the important and influential position of a legally-trained administrator;
see Fife, p. 67.

331

LETTERS

are vain ”; 11 but you were deaf. At last you desisted and bowed
to the will of God, but your fears for me were never laid aside. For
I remember very well 12 that after we were reconciled and you
were [again] talking with me, I told you that I had been called by
terrors from heaven and that I did not become a monk of my own
free will and desire, still less to gain any gratification of the flesh,
but that I was walled in by the terror and the agony of sudden
death and forced by necessity to take the vow. Then you said,
"Let us hope that it was not an illusion and a deception.” That
word penetrated to the depths of my soul and stayed there, as if
God had spoken by your lips, though I hardened my heart against
you and your word as much as I could. You said something else
too. When in filial confidence I upbraided you for your wrath, you
suddenly retorted with a reply so fitting and so much to the point
that I have hardly ever in all my life heard any man say anything
which struck me so forcibly and stayed with me so long. “Have
you not also heard,” you said, “that parents are to be obeyed?” But
I was so sure of my own righteousness that in you I heard only a
man, and boldly ignored you; though in my heart I could not ignore
your word.

See, now, whether you, too, were not unaware that the com-
mandments of God are to be put before all things. If you had
known that I was then in your power, would you not have used
your paternal authority to pull me out of the cowl? On the other
hand, had I known it, I would never have attempted to become
a monk without your knowledge and consent, even though I had
to die many deaths. For my vow was not worth a fig, since by
taking it I withdrew myself from the authority and guidance of
the parent [to whom I was subject] by Gods commandment; in-
deed, it was a wicked vow, and proved that it was not of God
not only because it was a sin against your authority, but because it
was not absolutely free and voluntary . 13 In short it was taken in
accordance with the doctrines of men and the superstition of hypo-

n Ps. 94: 11 (Vulgate).

12 The following is a recollection of what took place between father and son
at the celebration of Luther's first mass; see pp. 3 f., 300 f.; Bainton, pp. 39 ff.
i 8 I.e., the vow was said under the pressure of external circumstances (the
lightning near Stottemheim; see Bainton, pp. 21 ff. ) and thus with the wrong
motivation.

S32

TO HANS LUTHER, NOVEMBER 21, 1521

crites, none of which has God commanded. But behold how much
good God (whose mercies are without number and whose wisdom
is without end ) 14 has made to come out of all these errors and
sins! Would you now not rather have lost a hundred sons than
not have seen this good?

I think that from [the days of] my childhood Satan must have
foreseen something in me [which is the cause] of his present suf-
fering. He has therefore raged against me with incredible con-
trivings to destroy or hinder me, so that I have often wondered
whether I was the only man in the whole world whom he was
seeking. But it was the Lord’s will, as I now see, that the wisdom
of the schools and the sanctity of the monasteries should become
known to me by my own actual experience, that is, through many
sins and impieties, so that wicked men might not have a chance,
when I became their adversary, to boast that I condemned some-
thing about which I knew nothing. Therefore I lived as a monk,
indeed not without sin but without reproach . 15 For in the king-
dom of the pope impiety and sacrilege pass for supreme piety;
still less are they considered matters for reproach.

What do you think now? Will you still take me out of the
monastery? You are still my father and I am still your son and
all the vows are worthless. On your side is the authority of God,
on my side there is nothing but human presumption. For that
continence of which they boast with puffed-up cheeks is valueless
without obedience to Gods commandments. Continence is not
commanded but obedience is, yet the mad and silly papists will
not allow any virtue to be equal to continence and virginity.
They extol both these virtues with such prodigious lies that their
very craze for lying and the greatness of their ignorance, singly
or together, ought to cast suspicion on all they do or think.

What kind of intelligence do they show when they distort the
word of the Sage, “No balance can weigh the value of a continent
mind ,” 16 to mean that virginity and continence are to be preferred
to everything else and that vows of virginity cannot be commuted
or dispensed with? It was a Jew who wrote these words to Jews
w p s . 147:5.

15 For similar statements, see WA 38, 143.

i® Ecclus. 26:15 according to the Septmagint numbering and the RSV, 26:20
according to the Vulgate and Luther's Bible.

333

LETTERS

about a chaste wife; among the Jews virginity and continence were
condemned. Thus, too, they apply to virgins that eulogy of a
modest wife: “This is she who has not known a sinful bed ” 17 In
a word, although the Scriptures do not laud virginity but only
approve it, these men , 18 who are so ready to inflame men s souls to
lives that endanger their salvation, dress it up in borrowed plumes,
so to speak, by applying to it the praises the Scriptures bestow on
a chaste marriage.

But isn’t [the value] of an obedient soul also beyond all
measure? For that reason indeed a continent soul (that is, a
chaste wife) defies every measure, not only because [such a soul]
is commanded by God but also because, as the well-known proverb
says, there is nothing in the world more desirable than a chaste
wife . 19 But these “faithful” interpreters of Scripture [take] every-
thing that is said about the continence which is commanded [and]
apply it to that type of continence which is not commanded, and
[thus] make a human evaluation the measure of Gods judgment.
Thus they grant dispensations from everything, even from obedience
to God, [but they grant no dispensation from continence ], 20 even
from that forbidden continence which is entered upon against the
authority of one’s parents. O worthy and truly picayunish papistic
doctors and teachers! Virginity and chastity are to be praised, but
in such a way that by their very greatness men are frightened off
from them rather than led to them. This was Christ’s way. When
the disciples praised continence and said, “If such is the case of a
man with his wife, it is expedient not to marry,” he at once set
their minds straight on the matter and said, “Not all men can
receive this precept.” 21 The precept must be accepted, but it was
Christ’s will that only a few should understand it.

But to come back to you, my Father; would you still take me
out of the monastery? But that you would not boast of it, the Lord
has anticipated you, and taken me out himself. What difference
does it make whether I retain or lay aside the cowl and tonsure? 22

17 Wisd. of Sol. 3:13.

18 1.e., the papists.

19 This is either a popular saying (which could not be traced) or an allusion
to Prov. 12:4; 31:10, 30.

20 I.e., the monastic and clerical vow of celibacy.

21 Matt. 19:10-11. 22 See p. 308, n. 29.

334

TO HANS LUTHER, NOVEMBER 21, 1521

Do [they] make the monk? “All things are yours, and you are
Christ s,” says Paul . 23 Shall I belong to the cowl, or shall not the
cowl rather belong to me? My conscience has been freed, and that
is the most complete liberation. Therefore I am still a monk and
yet not a monk. I am a new creature, not of the pope but of Christ.
The pope also has his creatures , 24 but he creates puppets and
straw-men, that is, masks and idols of himself. I myself was
formerly one of them, led astray by the various usages of words,
by which even the Sage confesses that he was brought into the
danger of death but by Gods grace was delivered . 25

But am I not robbing you again of your right and authority?
No, for your authority over me still remains, so far as the monastic
life is concerned; but this is nothing to me anymore, as I have said.
Nevertheless [God], who has taken me out of the monastery, has
an authority over me that is greater than yours; you see that he
has placed me now not in a pretended monastic service but in the
true service of God. Who can doubt that I am in the ministry of
the Word? And it is plain that the authority of parents must yield
to this service, for Christ says, “He who loves father or mother
more than me is not worthy of me.” 26 Not that this word destroys
the authority of parents, for the Apostle [Paul] often insists that
children should obey their parents ; 27 but if the authority of parents
conflicts with the authority or calling of Christ, then Christs au-
thority must reign alone.

Therefore— so I am now absolutely persuaded— I could not have
refused to obey you without endangering my conscience unless
[Christ] had added the ministry of the Word to my monastic pro-
fession. This is what I meant when I said that neither you nor
I realized that God's commandments must be put before every-
thing else. But almost the whole world is now laboring under this
same ignorance, for under the papal abomination error rules. So
Paul also predicted when he said that men would become dis-
obedient to parents . 28 This fits the monks and priests exactly, espe-

23 1 Cor. 3:22-23.

24 For a similar statement, see p. 326.

2 ® Ecclus. 34:12-13.

2« Matt. 10:37.

2TEph. 6:1; Col. 3:20.

28 H Tim. 3:2.

335

LETTERS

daily those who under the pretense of piety and the guise of serv-
ing God withdraw themselves from the authority of their parents,
as though there were any other service of God except the keeping
of his commandments, which includes obedience to parents.

I am sending [you] this book, 29 then, in which you may see by
what signs and wonders Christ has absolved me from the monastic
vow and granted me such great liberty. Although he has made
me the servant of all men, I am, nevertheless, subject to no one
except to him alone. He is himself (as they say) my immediate
bishop, 30 abbot, prior, lord, father, and teacher; I know no other.
Thus I hope that he has taken from you one son in order that he
may begin to help the sons of many others through me. You
ought not only to endure this willingly, but you ought to rejoice
with exceeding joy— and this I am sure is what you will do. What
if the pope should slay me or condemn me to the depths of hell!
Having once slain me, he will not raise me up again to slay me a
second and third time, 31 and now that I have been condemned 32
I have no desire ever to be absolved. I trust that the day is at hand
when that kingdom of abomination and perdition will be de-
stroyed. Would that we were worthy to be burned or slain by
him 33 before that time, so that our blood might cry out against
him all the more and hasten the day of his judgment! But if we
are not worthy to bear testimony with our blood, then let us at
least pray and implore mercy that we may testify with deed and
word that Jesus Christ alone is the Lord our God, who is praised
forever. Amen.

Farewell [in the Lord], my dearest Father, and greet in Christ
my mother, your Margaret, 34 and our whole family.

From the wilderness , 35 November 21 , 1521 86

20 See note 5.

80 1.e., the diocesan bishop to whom the individual church member was
subordinate.

81 For a similar statement, see p. 147.

82 See p. 210; p. 179, n. 1; p. 192, n. 3.

88 1.e., the pope, or Satan.

84 See note 1.

88 See p. 263, n. 36.

86 Although the dedication letter was signed on November 21, the treatise did
not come off the press until early 1522. The signature is missing, since the
WA text is based on a copy of the printed edition of On Monastic Vows in
which the letter appears as the preface.

536

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, NOVEMBER 22, 1521

105

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, November 22, 1521

This is a covering letter for some manuscripts ready for publication.
Luther discusses rumors about the Augustinian monastery at Wit-
tenberg and expresses his wish that the Elector dissolve the
AU Saints Chapter.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 404-405.

To my dearest friend, George Spalatin
Jesus

Greetings. Please see to it, my Spalatin, that these two prefaces—
the German one should precede the Gospels, 1 the Latin one should
precede the little book On Monastic Vows 2 — are carefully kept with
you or Philip 3 so that they don’t get lost before I have finished
the rest of the Postil on which I am now working.

From a vague and indefinite report I have learned that some
of our people have disposed of the cowl. 4 I have been afraid that
perhaps they might have done this with a conscience not suf-
ficiently strong. This fear has wrested out of me this little book, 5
so that on the authority of my name, if it has any, they 6 might
receive support among pious and good people and be encouraged

1 The letter with which Luther dedicated the Wartburg Postil to Count
Albrecht of Mansfeld (see p. 145); see pp. 237 if.; WA 10l> \ 1 f. This is
one of the Wartburg letters omitted in the present edition. It is addressed to
Count Albrecht of Mansfeld and was signed on November 19.

2 See pp. 329 ff.; p. 331, n. 5.

3 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

4 Zwilling’s (see p. 39, n. 3; p. 281, n. 24; pp. 324 f.) and Karlstadt's (see p. 79,
n. 12; p. 277, n. 3; p. 283, n. 1 ) agitation showed further results. On Novem-
ber 12 the prior of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, Conrad Helt (see
p. 129, n. 9), reported to Elector Frederick that thirteen monks had left the
monastery and thrown away the cowl; according to another source fifteen had
left the monastery by November 30. In both cases Zwilling was, either
directly or indirectly, made responsible for this exodus. See WA, Br 2, 405,
n. 4; see also pp. 293 f.

5 On Monastic Votes; see note 2.

6 1.e., the monks who had abandoned their monastic life.

337

LETTERS

to have more confidence in themselves. It is certain that the
monastic vow must be condemned now, if only for this one reason:
the Word of God is not treated in the monasteries and only
unadulterated lies of humans rule there.

May God grant that our Sovereign 7 also abolish his Beth-
aven at Wittenberg ; 8 after the present residents 9 have died he may
distribute the income 10 among the poor, of which we have quite
a number around here, even among the nobles, as you know. This
kind of generosity would be worthy of the Sovereign, and would
open the eternal kingdom to him. What good does this ungodliness
do, which is only strengthened by him? 11
Other matters at another time.

Farewell in the Lord.

From the wilderness , 12 November 22, 1521

Martin Luther

7 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

8 In Old Testament times Beth-aven was the place of idolatrous worship;
see Hos. 4:15; 10:5. This is a reference to the All Saints' Chapter at the Castle
Church of Wittenberg. This chapter, richly endowed with real estate and
benefices in the country around Wittenberg and highly privileged by the
Roman church, was in charge of the famous relic collection of Wittenberg.
One of the most important privileges ( granted to the chapter in 1398 ) was
the right to offer the so-called Portiuncula indulgence to those who would
come to view the relics. This indulgence business and the obligation of
the canons of the chapter to celebrate mass in the Castle Church were the
reasons Luther called the chapter “Beth-aven.” Luther held the Elector
responsible for this “Beth-aven” because of the Elector's interest in the
relic collection and his position as territorial lord. For more details, see
Fife, pp. 133 f.; Schwiebert, pp. 259 f.; O.D.C.C., p. 1092.

9 E.g., Justus Jonas (see p. 275, n. 3), Andrew Karlstadt (see p. 79, n.
12), and John Dolsch (see p. 202, n. 14).

10 Apparently Luther was thinking of the current income from the indul-
gences, mass celebrations, and confessions, since the major part of the income
from endowments (real estate, benefices, and privileges) went to the Uni-
versity treasury; see Schwiebert, pp. 257 f.

11 Luther wanted a basic reform of the All Saints' Chapter because of the
idolatry involved and because certain members (e.g., Jonas and Karlstadt;
see note 9) openly supported the Reformation. Why should they, why
should Wittenberg, have to put up with the idolatry of those canons who
were still faithful to the papal church? Luther did not succeed with this
plea, which is understandable considering Elector Frederick's conservatism.
Consequently between 1521 and 1524 Luther, supported by Jonas, worked
for a reform of the chapter from within.

12 See p. 263, n. 36.

338

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, DECEMBER 1, 1521

106

To Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz
Wartburg, December 1, 1521

Luther issues an ultimatum to the Archbishop of Mainz to make,
within fourteen days, a public statement on the sale of indulgences
at Halle and to put an end to it . He also warns the Archbishop to
stop harassing priests who had married or intended to do so.

The address is missing on the manuscript copy of this letter;
but the content makes it clear to whom Luther was writing.

For the background of this letter, see p. 316, n. 10. On
Cardinal Albrecht, see pp. 44 f.

Text in German: WA, Br 2, 406-408.

To begin with, Most Reverend and Most Gracious Lord,

Your Electoral Grace may be assured of my willing service

No doubt Your Electoral Grace has a clear and vivid recollection
of the fact that I have twice written in Latin to Your Electoral
Grace. The first time was at the beginning of that mendacious
indulgence which was issued under Your Electoral Grace's name . 1
In that letter I faithfully warned Your Electoral Grace and opposed
in Christian love the wild, seductive, and greedy preachers, and
the heretical, superstitious books . 2 Had I preferred arrogance, I
could have directed the whole attack against Your Electoral Grace
as the one who undertook this sale in full responsibility and knowl-
edge, as was written in the printed titles of those heretical books.
But instead I have spared Your Electoral Grace and the ruling
family of Brandenburg . 3 I thought Your Electoral Grace might
have acted in ignorance and inexperience, led astray by lying
whisperers; so I attacked only them. It is well known to Your
Electoral Grace how much trouble and danger this caused me.

1 See pp. 43 ff.

2 This is a reference to the Archbishop's Instruction, issued for the use of
the indulgence commissioners; see p. 47, n. 16.

8 Albrecht was a member of the Hohenzollem family, which ruled Brand-
enburg, among other territories; see p. 56, n. 3.

339

LETTERS

My faithful admonition was mocked, however, and received
ingratitude instead of thanks from Your Electoral Grace. There-
fore I wrote most humbly a second time ; 4 I expressed my willing-
ness to receive instruction from Your Electoral Grace. I received
a harsh, improper, unepiscopal, and un-Christian answer ; 5 for the
purpose of obtaining instruction I was referred to higher powers.

These two letters accomplished nothing; yet I still do not give
up. According to the Gospel , 6 I am sending Your Electoral Grace the
third warning, too, and this time in German; maybe such super-
fluous warning and entreaty, which is beyond the call of duty,
will do some good.

Your Electoral Grace has now again erected at Halle that idol 7
which robs poor simple Christians of their money and their souls.
With this [Your Electoral Grace] has publicly confirmed that all
the stupid outrage committed by Tetzel 8 was not his alone but was
also due to the insolence of the [Arch]bishop of Mainz, who dis-
regarding my attempt to spare him insists on taking all the blame
on himself. Perhaps Your Electoral Grace thinks I am now out
of action and that you are safe from me, and that the monk is well
under the control of His Imperial Majesty . 9 This may be so; but
Your Electoral Grace should nevertheless know that I shall do what
Christian love requires, even the gates of hell notwithstanding , 10
to say nothing of the unlearned, the popes, the cardinals, and
bishops. I will not put up with or be silent about the fact that the
[Arch]bishop of Mainz pretends he knows nothing, or that it is
none of his business to give instruction when a poor man seeks it
from him; but on the other hand he certainly knows and proceeds
with impudence if it could bring him money. I cannot be fooled;
one has to behave differently . 11

My humble supplication to Your Electoral Grace is, therefore,

4 Martin Luther to Cardinal Albrecht: February 4, 1520. WA, Br 2, No. 248;
S-J 1, 281 f.

5 Cardinal Albrecht to Martin Luther: February 26, 1520. WA, Br 2, No.
259; S-J 1, 292 f.

« See Matt. 18:17.

7 I.e., the sale of indulgences; see pp. 43 ff.; p. 316, n. 10.

8 John Tetzel; see p. 45.

9 Through the Edict of Worms; see p. 210; p. 216, n. 7; p. 220, n. 12.

Matt. 16:18.

11 Literally: “one has to sing differently about this, and hear [of it].*

340

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, DECEMBER 1, 1521

that Your Electoral Grace refrain from leading the poor people
astray and from robbing them, and present yourself as a bishop
and not as a wolf. It is sufficiently well known that indulgences
are nothing else but knavery and fraud and that Christ alone
should be preached to the people. Therefore Your Electoral Grace
cannot be excused on the ground of ignorance.

Your Electoral Grace will please remember the beginning , 12
and what a horrible fire was kindled by ignoring this little spark.
The whole world was then surely of the opinion that one poor
friar was too unimportant to receive the popes attention and was
undertaking an impossible task. But God decided to give the
pope and all his followers more than enough to do. Over and
against the opinion of the whole world, God directed the game
to the point where the pope will hardly be able to straighten
out this affair any more; in addition the popes situation is daily
growing worse, so that one may see the hand of God in this.
Let no one doubt that this God still fives and also knows how to
withstand a cardinal of Mainz, even if four emperors would sup-
port him. God also takes special pleasure in breaking the lofty
cedars 13 and humbling the proud, hardened pharoahs . 14 I beg
Your Electoral Grace not to tempt or ignore Him; God’s knowledge
and power are without measure.

Your Electoral Grace should not at all think that Luther is
dead. He will so gladly and joyfully rely on that God who has
humbled the pope and will start a game with the Cardinal of
Mainz such as few people expect. Get together, dear bishops; you
may remain nobles, but you will not silence this spirit, or deafen
it. If you unexpectedly become a laughingstock from this , 15
however, then I will herewith have warned you.

Therefore be it finally made known in writing to Your Electoral
Grace: if the idol 16 is not taken down, my duty toward divine

12 Of the controversy on indulgences, i.e., in 1517/18.

13 Isa. 2:12-13.

i 4 E.g., Exod. 4:21; 7:3, 13.

15 The text does not make it clear to what "this" refers. It could be the
fact that the bishops remain nobles, or the game which will be played with
the Cardinal. The latter possibility seems the most probable.

16 I.e., the sale of indulgences at Halle; see p. 316, n. 10.

341

LETTERS

doctrine 17 and Christian salvation is a necessary, urgent, and
unavoidable reason to attack publicly Your Electoral Grace (as
I did the pope); then I shall have to oppose freely such an under-
taking, to blame all the previous abomination of Tetzel on the
[Arch]bishop of Mainz, and to show to all the world the difference
between a bishop and a wolf. Your Electoral Grace may decide
how to react and what to do.

If I am despised, another will come who will despise the
despiser, as Isaiah says . 18 I have admonished Your Electoral Grace
enough. Henceforth, according to St. Pauls teaching, it is the time
to accuse, ridicule, and punish publicly all the obvious offenders
before the whole world, so that the cause of the offense may be
driven out of God s kingdom . 19

Moreover I beg Your Electoral Grace to restrain yourself and
to leave in peace those priests who have married to avoid un-
chastity , 20 or intend to do so. Do not rob them of their God-given
rights . 21 For Your Electoral Grace cannot show any authority,
reason, or law to do this; wrongdoing that is simply wanton ill
becomes a bishop.

What do you bishops accomplish by resorting so insolently to
force and by embittering hearts against you while you will not and
cannot show reason or law for your conduct? Who do you think
you are? Have you all become nothing but giants and nimrods
from Babylon ? 22 Don’t you poor people know that as soon as
the pretense [of their right] is gone, wrongdoing and tyranny
[on anyone’s part causes] the loss [of the privilege of] the common
prayer of Christians, and cannot exist for long? Why do you hasten
like madmen to your own destruction? It will come all too soon
for you.

Let Your Electoral Grace be aware that if this 23 is not stopped,

17 See p. 6, n. 5; p. 49, n. 23.
is Isa. 33:1.
i» I Cor. 5:13.

^Apparently Luther is referring to the fate of Bartholomew Bernhardi (see
p. 115, n. 21; pp. 231, 378) and some other pastors who had married and were
therefore persecuted by the Archbishop. See WA, Br 2, 409, n. 16.

21 1.e., to marry; on celibacy, see pp. 277 ff., 283 ff., 293 f., 297 ff., 329 ff.

22 Gen. 10:8 ff.

28 1.e., either the persecution of the priests who had married or the arbitrary
rule of the hierarchy.

342

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, DECEMBER 1, 1521

due to the gospel a roar will arise proclaiming that it would become
the bishops to tear first the beams out of their own eyes, 24 and
that it would be just if bishops would first do away with their
harlots 25 before they separate devout wives from their husbands.

I beg Your Electoral Grace, in your own interest, to give me
a possibility and chance to be silent. I have no joy or pleasure
in Your Electoral Graces shame and dishonor. But if there is no
end to the disgracing of God and the dishonoring of his truth,
I and all Christians are obligated to hold fast to God's honor,
though the whole world— to say nothing of one poor man, a
cardinal— be put to shame by it. I shall not be silent; and even
if I may not be successful, still I hope that you bishops will not
finish your song with joy. You haven't yet wiped out all whom
Christ has raised up against your idolatrous tyranny.

I beg and expect Your Electoral Grace's definite and speedy
reply to this letter within fourteen days; if after this appointed
fortnight no public answer should appear, 28 my little book Against
the Idol at Halle will be released 27 Should this letter be inter-
cepted by Your Electoral Grace’s councilors 28 and not reach you,
I will not hold off for that reason. Councilors should be faithful;
a bishop should organize his court so that whatever should reach
him actually gets through to him. God give Your Electoral Grace
his grace to have a right mind and will.

Written in my wilderness , 29 December 1, 1521 30

Your Electoral Grace's willing and dedicated
Martin Luther

24 Matt. 7:5.

25 On Albrecht’s harlots, see WA 30 11 , 338, n. 3.

26 In the form of a public proclamation by the Archbishop; a private letter
could not reach Luther, whose whereabouts were secret.

27 This is Luther’s Against the Idol at Halle; for details, see pp. 344 ff.

28 Perhaps Luther was thinking of the possibility that some or the Archbishop's
councilors (maybe Capito, whom he did not trust at this point anyway; see
pp. 305 f.; p. 316, n. 10; pp. 326 f.) might intercept the letter and not turn it
over to the Archbishop in an attempt to avoid further complications, such as
a violent reaction on the part of the Archbishop.

22 See p. 263, n. 36.

30 On the date, see pp. 345 ff.

843

LETTERS

Excursus

Luther had worked on Against the Idol at Halle since the end of
September or the beginning of October, when he had heard of the
indulgence sale at Halle. On the basis of Luther s statements in the
ultimatum and in his correspondence (see pp. 316, 341 f.), it must
be assumed that this book dealt with the sale of indulgences at Halle;
perhaps it can also be assumed that Luther dealt with the persecution
of married priests too; see pp. 342 f. It could not be definitely deter-
mined whether this book was written in Latin or German. The latter
can be assumed, however, if one applies Luthers statement in his
November 1 letter to Gerbel that “all this is in German” [i.e., all the
books mentioned] to Against the Idol at Halle ; see p. 320. On questions
of language and content of this book, see below. Albrecht, anticipating
Luthers attack, had sent Capito to Electoral Saxony at the end of
September in an attempt to have the Electoral government and Luther's
friends stop any such attack. Luther was determined, however, to go
ahead with his rebuke of the Archbishop; therefore on October 7 he
informed Spalatin that he would not.be restrained from privately and
publicly attacking the Archbishop for his part in the sale of indulgences
at Halle; see p. 316.

Thus Luther envisioned from the very beginning of this con-
troversy two forms of communication which his criticism of the Arch-
bishop would take: one private, i.e., letter No. 106; one public, i.e.,
the book Against the Idol at Halle. On November 1 the manuscript
of this public rebuke of Albrecht was completed; see p. 320. Luther
apparently included the manuscript with the “material” he sent Spalatin
on November 1 for forwarding to Melanchthon; see p. 323. As Luther
mentioned in his November 11 letter to Spalatin, he left it up to
Melanchthon to change the manuscript wherever Melanchthon saw fit,
or even to delete any statements that were too sharp; see pp. 326, 353.
In spite of the Elector's attempt to prevent Luther from publishing
Against the Idol at Halle (see p. 326, n. 1), on November 11 Luther
firmly expressed his determination to publish this work, saying he would
rather lose Spalatin's friendship and the Elector's good will than be
silent; see pp. 326 f.

At the beginning of December when Luther secretly went to
Wittenberg (see p. 350), he found that Spalatin, most likely upon
orders from the Elector, had refrained from forwarding to Melanchthon
the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle , as well as manuscripts of
other works. Luther vehemently insisted that Spalatin follow his
orders (see pp. 350 f.), and his sharp words had results. Before Decem-
ber 12 Spalatin forwarded to Melanchthon the manuscripts he had re-
tained: that of On Monastic Vows (see p. 331, n. 5, sent by Luther
to Spalatin either on November 22 or shortly thereafter; see p. 337)
and that of On the Abrogation of the Private Mass (see p. 324, sent

344

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, DECEMBER 1, 1521

by Luther to Spalatin on November 11; see p. 327). See WA, Br
2, 410, n. 1. It can easily be understood why Spalatin did not forward
this material to Melanchthon for publication if one considers the
situation in Wittenberg (see pp. 324 f.; p. 337, n. 4) and the Electors at-
tempt to prevent any further trouble within Wittenberg and with Mainz.
Why add oil to the fire by publishing Luther’s sharp statements
on controversial subjects? Spalatin must also have forwarded to
Melanchthon letter No. 106 (to the Archbishop of Mainz), for Me-
lanchthon sent it off to Mainz via Capito on December 11; see p.
305, n. 4; p. 316, n. 10; C.R. 1, 492; WA, Br 2, No. 442, Introduction.
Luthers order of about December 12 to Spalatin to turn the letter
(No. 106) and the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle over to
Melanchthon was at least partially unnecessary. Spalatin, however,
apparently still retained the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle ,
since it was not before January 13, 1522, that Luther thought
Melanchthon had received it; see p. 372. In his letter of about
December 12, Luther consented to postponing its publication, but
insisted that the letter to Mainz be sent immediately (see p. 353),
which of course had already been done. It could not be determined
whether the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle ever reached
Melanchthon. Luther believed that it did (see p. 372), and it is
possible that it finally did reach Melanchthon, who, according to
Luthers January 13 request (see p. 372), may have filed it away for
the time being.

In the reconstruction of these events there are three unclear
points which the editor of WA, Br 2, overlooked: (1) Luthers ship-
ment of November 1 (see p. 323), (2) the date of letter No. 106,
and (3) certain statements concerning the manuscript of Against the
Idol at Halle in Luthers November 11 letter to Spalatin. Did Luther
on November 1 send to Spalatin for forwarding to Melanchthon both
the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle and No. 106? Or only
one of these documents? Or none of them? To what does the "ma-
terial” mentioned in No. 101 refer? The WA, Br editor assumes the
first possibility when he identifies the "material” of No. 101 with No.
106 and the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle. This identifica-
tion would also make it necessary to assume a change of the date of
No. 106 from December 1 to November 1. Thus he contradicts him-
self when he states in the introduction to the letter to the Archbishop
(No. 106) that Luther sent the letter to Spalatin alshald , i.e., soon
after December 1; see WA, Br 2, 405. Therefore his assumption can-
not be upheld that the material Luther sent to Spalatin on November 1
for forwarding to Melanchthon included both the letter to the Arch-
bishop (No. 106) and the manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle (see
WA, Br 2, 399, n. 1).

Could it not have been that Luther sent only the manuscript of

345

LETTERS

Against the Idol at Halle on November 1, and not yet the letter?
Perhaps Luther reconsidered his sharp statements of November 11
(see pp. 326 f.) and tried to settle the case with the ultimatum in
No. 106, thus completing his original plan of approaching the Arch-
bishop both privately and publicly (see p. 316). No. 106 would then
have had to be written on December 1, the date the WA, Br editor
gives, not realizing that his footnote to WA, Br 2, No. 436 (see in this
volume, p. 323) would make a change in date necessary. Luther
wrote No. 106 on December 1 and sent it off to Spalatin. While
Luther was in Wittenberg (see p. 350) he found out Spalatin had re-
tained the material sent from the Wartburg (see p. 350, nn. 3, 4; p. 351,
n. 5). In his indignation and hurry he forgot to mention No. 106 when,
in No. 107, he ordered Spalatin to release the manuscripts. Therefore
about December 12 he made a special point to Spalatin that No. 106
was finally to be forwarded to Mainz, not knowing that this had
already been done; see above.

This interpretation necessitates identifying the neuter accusative
plural ista or the “material” of No. 101 of November 1. On the
basis of the material mentioned in No. 107 (in which Luther listed
the manuscripts in an order just the reverse of the order in which he
had sent them; see above and p. 350, nn. 3, 4; p. 351, n. 5) and
in the letter to Gerbel, in which Luther mentioned that the public
rebuke of the Archbishop of Mainz had been completed (see p. 320),
it seems certain that Luther enclosed the manuscript of Against the
Idol at Halle. But what else did he enclose that would justify the
plural ista? He could not have sent the manuscript of On the Abroga-
tion of the Private Mass (see p. 324), since he shipped this on Novem-
ber 11; see p. 327. Nor could it have been the manuscript of On
Monastic Vows, since Luther said on November 11 that he was working
on it; see p. 328. Perhaps it was a final shipment of the Christmas
portion of the Wartburg Postil; see pp. 237 ff.; on November 22 Luther
sent the letter of dedication for this work; see p. 337, n. 1. Or per-
haps one should understand the ista to refer to something like ista folia,
and translate it as “these [manuscript sheets of Against the Idol at
Halle, which will be with you].”

Luthers statements concerning the manuscript of Against the Idol
at Halle in his November 11 letter to Spalatin seem to confuse the is-
sue even more; see pp. 326 f. There Luther wrote: “. . . mitto libellum in
eum [the Archbishop] iam paratum, cum venissent tuae litter ae, quibus
nihil motus sum, ut aliquid mutarem . . see WA, Br 2, 402. Since
mittere means “to send off,” this passage would have to be understood
to mean that Luther was enclosing the manuscript of Against the Idol
at Hade , which had been completed before Spalatin’s letter (see p. 326,
n. 1) arrived at the Wartburg, and in which manuscript he would
make no changes in spite of Spalatin’s letter. This understanding would

346

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, DECEMBER 1, 1521

completely nullify the identification of the “material” of No. 101 given
by the WA , Br editor.

There are three possibilities of interpreting Luthers statement
quoted above: (1) Adopt the translation of mitto as “I send/' This
would mean that Luther did not send Spalatin the manuscript of
Against the Idol at Halle on November 1 (see p. 323) but enclosed
it on November 11. Further, if one does not want to assume, due to
the differences in the dates (see above), that Luther included the
letter to the Archbishop (No. 106) in his November 1 letter to
Spalatin, one is faced with the problem of identifying the “material”
of this letter (see p. 323). It seems to this editor that this possibility
has to be eliminated in view of the complications which would arise
concerning the identification of this “material.” And even more
important, the assumption of this possibility would raise the question:
how did Spalatin know of Against the Idol at Halle, even in detail,
so that shortly before November 11 he could have written to Luther
and characterized this work as something which would disturb the
peace? See pp. 326 f.; p. 326, n. 1. Spalatin must have seen this
work before November 11. The problem would then be whether
or not before November 11 Spalatin had seen the whole work or only
a portion of it. This raises a second possible interpretation of Luther's
statement quoted above: (2) Maintain the literal meaning of mitto
and argue that Luther enclosed in his November 11 letter to Spalatin
the final portion of his manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle, of
which he had sent a first instalment on November 1. This first instal-
ment gave Spalatin and the Elector a good look at this work, and
they were aghast at the reaction they knew would come. Spalatin
(in his letter which Luther answered on November 11; see p. 326,
n. 1) then tried to stop Luther, or at least make him change some of
it. Spalatin’s letter, however, came too late: Luther had already
finished the manuscript and could not be influenced to change any of
it. Luther enclosed the last part of the manuscript of Against the Idol
at Halle on November 11 and ordered Spalatin not to retain it but
to turn it over to Melanchthon at once; see p. 326. In spite of the
fact that this reconstruction seems somewhat artificial, many elements
speak for it: Spalatin 's attempt to stop Luther is clear if one con-
siders that he had knowledge of the contents of the book; Luther's
November 11 statement that he was enclosing a work which already
had been completed is also understandable; the “material” of
November 1 can at least be partially identified as Against the Idol at
Halle (or completely if one conjectures folia ; see above); and Luthers
November 11 statement that he had left it to Melanchthon to make
changes makes sense if it refers to his letter to Spalatin of November
1, when he had shipped the first instalment of the work, although he
did not make this reference explicit.

347

LETTERS

A third possibility is to supply a different interpretation of mittere ;
it can mean “to send off,” but it can also mean “to put out” or “to
release.” This would mean that on November 11 Luther affirmed his
determination to publish Against the Idol at Halle in spite of Spalatin's
protests. It would leave open, however, when the manuscript was
sent to Spalatin. Luther's additional statement, “it was already com-
pleted,” suggests, however, the same circumstances presented in (2),
namely, that Luther was then sending the final part.

This editor is inclined, as a result, to reconstruct the events which
occurred between November 1 and the beginning of December as
follows: contrary to the opinion of the W A, Br editor, it seems that
on November 1 Luther sent Spalatin only a first instalment of the
manuscript of Against the Idol at Halle , which was to be forwarded
to Melanchthon. Although Luther did not say so, he intended to
leave any changes to Melanchthon's discretion. Shocked by what he
read in die first instalment and perhaps ordered by the Elector, Spalatin
tried to intervene with Luther. Luther totally rejected Spalatin's
attempted intervention. On November 11 he informed Spalatin that
the manuscript was completed (and thus it may be assumed that he
enclosed the last portion of it), that he would change nothing in it in
spite of Spalatin's requests, and that he was determined to have the
book published, even if this cost him the friendship of Spalatin and
the support of the Elector. Having perhaps reconsidered his sharp
statements and returning to his original plan of approaching the
Archbishop both privately and publicly (see p. 316), Luther wrote letter
No. 106, on December 1, issuing his ultimatum to the Archbishop.
Maybe it would do some good (see p. 340), but if not, then Against
the Idol at Halle (which Luther thought was already in Melanchthon's
hands, ready to go to press) could and would be published.

How disappointed and angry Luther must have been when he
learned during his visit to Wittenberg at the beginning of December
that none of the material he had sent to Spalatin from the Wartburg
in the last weeks had been sent on to Melanchthon! Letter No. 107
reflects this disappointment and anger on Luther's part. It is interesting
to observe that through Spalatin's fearful procrastination, Capito's
mission (see p. 316, n. 10) was successful after all, at least in part,
since Luther's public rebuttal of the Archbishop was temporarily
postponed. Although Luther was suspicious of Albrecht's answer to
his ultimatum (see pp. 365, 373 f., 376 ff.), nevertheless on January
13 he abandoned his idea of publishing Against the Idol at Halle until
others, like the Archbishop, would go “insane” with the sale of indul-
gences and/or the persecution of the married priests; see p. 372.

Luther was obviously of the opinion that his manuscript of
Against the Idol at Halle had finally reached Melanchthon. Whether
or not this was the case, and what happened to the autograph, could

348

TO CARDINAL ALBRECHT, DECEMBER 1, 1521

not be determined. It apparently was never published in Luther's time.
Perhaps some light is shed on the fate of this work, as well as some
insight gained into its content, through an autograph fragment of a
German text in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. See WA 10 n , 93 ff.
This fragment in Luther's handwriting shows corrections (perhaps in
Melanchthon’s handwriting, as is suggested in WA 10 n , 94) which
alter direct references to the Archbishop of Mainz and substitute gen-
eral statements for them. The fragment is edited in WA 10 n , 121 ff.,
col. 1. A printed text which apparently is identical with the corrected
text of the Bodleian fragment (disregarding minor discrepancies) is
available in Luthers Wider den falsch genannten geistlichen Stand des
Papstes und der Bischofe ( Against the Wrongly Named “ Spiritual?’
Estate of the Pope and of the Bishops) (Wittenberg: N. Schirlenz,
July, 1522). WA 10 11 , 105 ff. Based on this fact as well as the cor-
rections which can be found in the Bodleian fragment, the WA editors
drew the following conclusions: Realizing that the corruption with
which he had charged the Archbishop of Mainz in Against the Idol at
Halle was typical of the Roman hierarchy as such, Luther did not
wait until any particular bishop went “insane” (see p. 372) but pub-
lished, in July, 1522, a general indictment of the Roman hierarchy,
i.e.. Against the Wrongly Named .... For this work Luther used
Against the Idol at Halle; to do this only the direct references to
Albrecht of Mainz had to be replaced with general statements. Ac-
cording to the WA editors, the Bodleian fragment precisely fits this
situation. Consequently, the WA editors argue, the Bodleian fragment
is a portion of the autograph of Against the Idol at Halle; further,
the text of Against the Wrongly Named ... is the text in which
Luther finally— after Melanchthon (?) had made corrections— issued
Against the Idol at Halle.

Exciting as this argument is and as convincing as it sounds, it
raises certain problems which the WA editors overlooked. First of
all, the Bodleian fragment is in no way clearly designated as a fragment
of Against the Idol at Halle; unimportant as this may be, it has to be
pointed out. Secondly, one has to ask: does the text of Against the
Wrongly Named . . . still reflect the circumstances (sale of indulgences,
persecution of married priests) with which Against the Idol at Halle
must have dealt? And if so, does it do this in such a way that one
recognizes them, or, are indulgence sales and the persecution of
married priests just some among many points, so that one is not com-
pelled to think of a specific issue involved? Thirdly, could not the
Bodleian fragment be a part of the (not extant) autograph of Against
the Wrongly Named . . . ? Could the references to the sale of in-
dulgences and to the persecution of married priests only be a trace of
the past controversy with Albrecht of Mainz? In summary, one has
to ask, do the corrections in the Bodleian fragment demand the inter-

349

LETTERS

pretation given by the W A editors as well as justify die assumption that
it is a fragment of the autograph of Against the Idol at Halle? If the
Bodleian fragment really is a part of Against the Idol at Halle (which
cannot be confirmed or denied in this excursus) which was used for
Against the Wrongly Named . . . , then the relationship between
both works has to be shown in greater detail than the WA editors did.
Did Luther incorporate a part of Against the Idol at Halle (namely,
the Bodleian fragment) into Against the Wrongly Named . . . ? Or
did he enlarge and change certain statements, so that Against the
Wrongly Named . . . would be, so to speak, a second edition of
Against the Idol at Halle? These questions would have to be answered,
at least in part, before one could confirm the WA editors* assumption
that the Bodleian fragment is part of the autograph of Against the Idol
at Halle.

107

To George Spalatin
Wittenberg, about December 5, 1521 1

While making a brief secret visit to Wittenberg at the beginning
of December , 1521 , Luther sends greetings to Spalatin. He
expresses his disappointment and near anger that the manuscripts
he had recently sent to Spalatin from the Wartburg were not for-
warded to Wittenberg as he had requested. Luther orders Spalatin
to release the manuscripts immediately. He tells of his worries
about the improper conduct of certain of “ our” people and promises
to write a public exhortation on that subject.

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 409-410; translation based on S-J 2,
78-79.

To my George Spalatin, a servant of Christ and a friend

Jesus

Greetings. I have sent you, along with letters , 2 the [manuscripts
of the] little books on vows , 3 on the masses , 4 and against the tyrant

1 On the dating of this letter, see WA, Br 2, No. 443, Introduction.

2 See notes 3, 4, 5.

8 See p. 331, n. 5. The covering letter is not extant; perhaps it is No. 105.

4 See p. 324. No. 103 is the covering letter; see p. 327.

350

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, ABOUT DECEMBER 5, 1521

of Mainz . 5 I had hoped that they all were given to the proper
people. Now, since I find everything different, I have to draw my
own conclusions. I fear, namely, that the material might have been
intercepted on the way or have been lost in some other way by
the messenger. There is nothing that would disturb me more
at this moment than to know that [these manuscripts] had reached
you and that you were holding them back, since I have dealt in
these little books with themes that require the greatest possible
haste. Therefore if you have them, for goodness' sake curb that
moderation and prudence of which I suspect you, for you accom-
plish nothing by rowing against the stream . 6 What I have written
I want published, if not in Wittenberg then certainly somewhere
else. If the manuscripts have been lost or if you have kept them,
I will be so embittered 7 that I will write more vehemently than
ever on these points. Whoever destroys lifeless paper will not
also quench the spirit. I came to Wittenberg and amid all the
delight of being with my friends again 8 I found this drop of
bitterness, namely, none of them has ever heard of or seen my
little books and letters. Judge for yourself whether I should not
consider [my] disappointment justified.

Everything else that I hear and see pleases me very much.
May the Lord strengthen the spirit of those who want to do right!
Nevertheless I was disturbed on the way by various rumors con-
cerning the improper conduct of some of our people , 9 and [there-

5 See pp. 344 ff. Nos. 101 and 103 are the covering letters for the two parts
in which ( in the opinion of this editor ) the manuscript was sent to Spalatin.

6 This seems to be an allusion to a statement made by Seneca ( Epistolae 122 ) ;
see WA, Br 2, 410, n. 2. For a similar statement, see Erasmus’ Adagio.
Clericus 2, 748, A.

7 Literally: “my spirit will become embittered”; this is an allusion to Ps.
106:33.

8 Literally: “among the sweetest sweetnesses of friends.”

9 It is not clear to what Luther is referring. It certainly cannot be the events
which took place in Wittenberg (see p. 281, n. 24; pp. 324 f.; p. 337, n. 4),
since he endorsed them (see pp. 281, 327, 337 f.) and now says that he is
pleased with everything. The reference apparently is not to a single event but
rather to the general tense atmosphere Luther encountered on his journey from
the Wartburg to Wittenberg. As early as May 26 Luther expressed h is fear
that the tyrannical rule of the clergy, by which the gospel was suppressed,
would cause a reaction among the people that might be explosive; see p. 233.
Rumors, perhaps reports of individual accidents (such as the one to which
p. 327, n. 10, refers), and the general tension only confirmed Luther’s fear.
See WA 8, 670 f.

331

LETTERS

fore] I have decided to issue a public exhortation 10 on that subject
as soon as I have returned to my wilderness . 11

More at another time. Commend me to the Most Illustrious
Sovereign , 12 from whom I want to keep my arrival in Wittenberg
and my departure a secret. You well enough realize the reason
for this.

Farewell.

Wittenberg , in Amsdorfs 13 house , in the company of my
Philip. 1 * 1521

Martin Luther

Philip will provide you 15 with a Latin Bible 16 which you
should send me; please assume [this task] and handle it with your
[usual] trustworthiness . 17

See p. 355, n. 18.

11 See p. 263, n. 36.

12 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

13 Nicholas von Amsdorf; see p. 218. While in Wittenberg Luther did not
stay in his old quarters, the Augustinian monastery, for obvious reasons (see
p. 359); instead he stayed with his friend von Amsdorf. At one time during
this visit Lucas Cranach must have portrayed Luther as a knight; see p. 228,
n. 33. On von Amsdorf s house, see WA, Br 8, 662.

14 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

45 Luther wrote apud te, which in classical Latin would mean “with you”
or “at your place,” but this would make little sense here. Consequently this
postscript is ambiguous and is interpreted differently by different editors; see
WA, Br 2, 410, n. 6. It seems to this editor that Luther used apud to mean
ad, i.e., “to.” This is a rare use of apud but occasionally is found in writings
of the period 200 b.c. to a.d. 120, in the Vulgate, and in medieval documents;
see Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary (New York, 1958), p. 147; E. A.
Gooder, Latin for Local History (London, 1961), p. 103. Thus it seems
justifiable to understand this passage as meaning that Melanchthon would
send a Bible to Spalatin, who in turn was to forward it to the Wartburg.

16 The purpose of Luther’s visit to Wittenberg was probably to discuss work
on the translation of the Bible, a plan which must have evolved during the
early fall of 1520. In addition Luther wanted to find out what was going on
in Wittenberg, and to be with his friends again. It is not clear what type of
Bible Luther means. Since it seems dubious that Luther needed a Vulgate, the
WA, Br editor has suggested that this Bible was a copy of one of the medieval
German translations of the Vulgate; see p. 363, n. 26; WA, Br 2, 410, n. 6.

17 Luther wrote fide tua. The translation here expresses sarcasm, stemming
from Luther’s disappointment about Spalatin’s action, or lack of action. Fides
can also be a technical term, however, connoting the credit rating of a per-
son. Thus one could also translate it: “and take care of it with your credit,”
i.e., financially; thus the WA, Br editor (WA, Br 2, 410, n. 6) suggests
that Spalatin should assume responsibility for the Bible; financial, if Spalatin
bought the Bible; personal, if he borrowed it.

352

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, ABOUT DECEMBER 12, 1521

108

To George Spalatin 1
Wartburg, about December 12, 1521

In the aftermath of his visit to Wittenberg (see p. 350) Luther per-
mits the publication of Against the Idol at Halle to be postponed,
insisting, however, that his letter to the Archbishop of Mainz (see
pp. 339 ff.) be immediately forwarded to Melanchthon . Reproaching
Spalatin for being too much involved in the affairs of the court ,
Luther gives his reaction to the latest moves of the Archbishop .
He also includes the manuscript of the Exhortation, returns a spare
set of printed sheets of Melanchthon s Loci, asks for other sets he
lacks, and sends a Greek New Testament to be forwarded to
Melanchthon .

On George Spalatin, see pp . 8 f.

Text in Latin : W A, Br 2, 412.

Greetings. I will allow the publication of the little book against
the man of Mainz 2 to be postponed, so that it doesn’t seem as if
I never give in to you. But I wish you to turn it over to Philip , 3
whom I have requested to delete any statements which may be too
sharp . 4 I definitely want the letter , 5 however, to be forwarded to
[the Archbishop of Mainz], and I shall send him another letter via
my own messenger . 6

I am satisfied with what you write concerning [the Arch-
bishop’s] preaching in the future . 7 You are right not to judge

1 The address is missing in the printed editions of this letter. That Spalatin
was the recipient of this letter is clear from the contents. On the dating,
see WA, Br 2, No. 444, Introduction.

2 Cardinal Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz; see pp. 44 f., 344 ff.

3 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

4 See pp. 326, 344. This concession seems to be somewhat more far-reaching
than Luther had originally intended. Perhaps it was the result of a discussion
concerning Against the Idol at Halle which Luther might have had with
Melanchthon during his short visit to Wittenberg at the beginning of Decem-
ber; see p. 350.

5 See pp. 339 ff.

6 It is not clear what Luther means here.

7 In Spalatin’s (not extant) answer to letter No. 107 he apparently told Luther
that the Archbishop had promised to reform and preach the gospel in order
to prevent Luther’s onslaught; he also must have written that the married

353

LETTERS

rashly, but you are wrong not to believe me at least once. I know
Satan’s designs, my Spalatin, but nothing [can be done] against
the plans of the Lord. I even know there will be more action on
Satan’s part; he may attack us with a greater show than this one,
but not even this will cause me to fear him. For the Lord lives,
whom you people— -as is becoming to courtiers— do not trust unless
he arranges his works according to your way of thinking, so that
faith would no longer be necessary. Nothing offends me more in
this court 8 than the unbelief which neither believes that all events
are due to the will of God alone, nor approves of anything else
but what we can hope to complete by our own power. All the
experiences and examples we have had haven’t thus far accom-
plished anything at all, even in this particular case . 9 You write
that the priests 10 were released by them , 11 as if this release were
not seven times more cruel than captiyily or immediate homicide,
since they forced those poor men to perjure themselves and deny
the truth of God . 12 These are the very people of whom you boast
that they have returned to the straight path; these are the very
people whom you expect to preach the gospel from the heart at
one time or another.

For goodness’ sake, if it is the truth that celibacy and mo-
nasticism are condemned by God, which is without doubt the case,
why should one not be free to tiy to follow the opposite course ? 13
Or should one continue only to debate about the Word of God
and forever refrain from action? But why do I talk to the deaf? 14
Your mind does not believe; it is too much occupied with the

priests who had been imprisoned by Albrecht were being released. With this
news Spalatin must have tried to justify the fact that he had retained Against
the Idol at Halle; see pp. 350 f. Spala tin's source for this news could not be
verified. For more details, see WA, Br 2, No. 444, Introduction.

8 I.e., the Electoral Saxon court; see also pp. 383 ff.

9 I.e., the controversy with the Archbishop of Mainz concerning the sale of
indulgences at Halle and the persecution of the married priests; see pp. 342 f.,

10 See p. 342, n. 20.

11 I.e., the officials of the Archbishop of Mainz; see p. 377, n. 27.

12 See pp. 377 f.

18 For the development of Luther's stand on celibacy and monasticism, see
pp. 277 ff., 283 ff., 293 f., 297 ff., 310, 329 ff.

14 This saying ( drawn from the statements of classical authors ) was recorded
by Erasmus in Adagia; see Clericus 2, 178, C.

354

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, ABOUT DECEMBER 12, 1521

affairs at court, that is, it is both too sophisticated and too timid.
I shall believe that the bishops will preach the gospel when I have
seen that they have given up their dioceses and have dedicated
themselves to the Word of God ; 15 before that I shall not believe
it. In the meantime I shall not fear the designs of Satan, who
blasphemes this office 16 with sacrilegious pretense . 17 I finally see
that in this case the counsels of men must be overcome. Up to now
I was hindered by them in many ways; but they vainly fear that
heaven will go to pieces. If nothing should be done differently
than we have previously done, then also one should never have
taught anything else [than what had previously been taught].

I am sending the German Exhortation to you . 18 I want it to be
published as soon as possible in order to counteract those rough
and foolish braggarts who boast of our name. I have this extra
set of “G” of the printed sheets of Philip’s Loci . 19 But I lack the
last three sets, “Q,” “R,” and “S,” which you will please supply at
your convenience. Also, please turn over the Greek New Testament
to Philip . 20

Farewell to you and the whole court. May Christ one day
bring this court to a true and sincere 21 faith . 22 Amen . 23

Yours,

Martin Luther

is See p. 47; p. 309, n. 31; pp. 376 ff.

16 I.e., the office of preaching the gospel.

17 Luther considers the Archbishop’s willingness to reform to be nothing more
than a maneuver of Satan; see also pp. 376 ff.

18 Luther had just promised to write this exhortation; see p. 352. Eine treue
Vermahnung Martin Luthers an aUe Christen , sich vor Aufruhr tmd Emporung
zu hiiten (A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to AU Christians to Guard
Against Insurrection and Rebellion) (Wittenberg: M. Lotther, 1521/22). W A
8, 676 ff.; LW 45, 57 ff.

19 See p. 232, n. 21; p. 297.

20 Since Luther had Gerbel’s Greek New Testament at the Wartburg ( see
p. 321, n. 34) he did not need this one. It probably belonged to Melanchthon
and may have been used as a basis for the discussions on the translation of
the Bible which took place during Luther’s visit in Wittenberg; see p. 350.
Luther must have forgotten to return it; see WA, DB 6, xxxv f.

21 Luther used a Greek word here.

22 I Tim. 1:5.

23 One of the early printed editions adds here: " Anno MDXXIIII ” i.e., "in
the year 1524.” The content of this letter, however, makes it clear that this
date is wrong.

355

LETTERS

109

To John Lang

Wartburg, December 18, 1521

Karlstadfs literary work (see p. 283 , n. 1), Luthers own stand on
monasticism (see p. 302, n. 36; p. 311, n. 5; p. 331, n. 5), and
Zwillings agitation in Wittenberg (see p. 337, n. 4) caused many
monks and nuns to abandon their monastic life. In this letter
Luther criticizes the disorderly departure of monks from the monas-
teries. He also mentions his intention to stay at the Wartburg until
Easter and his work on the translation of the New Testament.

On John Lang, see p. 14.

Text in Latin ; WA, Br 2, 413.

To my dearest friend John Lang, Augustinian friar, ecclesiast
at Erfurt, from Martin Luther

1 do not approve of that tumultuous exodus, for the monks could
have parted from each other in a peaceful and friendly way. You
will be at the next chapter meeting ; 1 see to it that you favor and
defend the evangelical party . 2

I shall be hiding here until Easter . 3 In the meantime I shall
finish the Postil 4 and translate the New Testament into German,
an undertaking our friends request . 5 I hear you are also working
on this . 6 Continue as you have begun. I wish every town would
have its interpreter, and that this book alone, in all languages,
would live in the hands, eyes, ears, and hearts of all people . 7

*A special chapter meeting of the Reformed Augustinians (see p. 6, n. 3;
p. 171, n. 7) was to be held in Wittenberg in January, 1522; this meeting
was to deal with the drifting away of the friars from monastic life.

2 Among the Augustinian Eremites.

2 April 20, 1522.

4 This is a reference to the Advent portion of the Wartburg Postil; see pp.
237 ff .

5 According to Luther’s later statement, it was Melanchthon who advised him
to translate the Bible; see WA, DB 6, xxxn. It is most probable that this was
done during Luther’s secret visit to Wittenberg at the beginning of December,
1521; see p. 350; p. 355, n. 20.

• Lang translated the Gospel according to St. Matthew; see WA, DB 6, xxxn,
n. 1.

7 Erasmus of Rotterdam made a similar statement in Paraclesis ( one of his

356

TO WENCESLAS LINK, DECEMBER 18, 1521

You will hear about other things from the people of Witten-
berg. 8 Physically I am healthy and well cared for, but I am also
thoroughly buffeted by sins and temptations. 9 Pray for me, and
farewell.

From the wilderness , 10 December 18, 1521

Yours,

Martin Luther

110

To Wenceslas Link
Wartburg, December 18, 1521

Summarizing his stand on celibacy (see pp. 277 f., 283 ff., 297 ff., 329
ff.), Luther discusses the unrest among the Augustinians and their
desertion of monastic life . He urges Link, the vicar general of the
Order, to direct the upcoming chapter meeting so that it passes a
resolution which would make the abandoning or maintaining of
monastic life a matter of personal choice. Luther also asks Link to
extend greetings to von Staupitz .

On Wenceslas Link, see pp. 169 f.

Text in Latin: W A, Br 2, 414-415.

To the excellent Christian man, Wenceslas Link, vicar
of the Augustinian congregation, 1 my superior in Christ

Greetings. I glory in the Lord, excellent Wenceslas, that you like
my Catharinus, 2 because I rely heavily on your judgment. But
look (so I may deal directly with you), they say, “Whosoever agrees
with the premises of a sound statement cannot deny its conse-

introductions to the Greek text of the New Testament; see p. 23); see Clericus
6, 3 verso.

8 1.e., the Wittenberg Augustinian delegation to the chapter meeting.

9 See p. 28, n. 10.

10 See p. 263, n. 36.

iLink had been vicar general of the Augustinians since August, 1520; see
p. 171, n. 7.

2 Luther had dedicated his Answer to Catharinus to Link; see p. 291, n. 10.

357

LETTERS

quences .” 3 And the consequence is what you now see in the
monastery . 4 If it is contrary to the gospel to declare the [particular]
usages of food, place, person, time, and other things to be sin,
where then will the vows, the monasteries, the rules, and the
statutes remain? For all these things are contrary to the gospel . 5
And so it is as true that it is contrary to the gospel to make sins
out of these things as it is certain that the gospel is the gospel.
What will you do now? Whom will you force into obedience?
Whom will you call back, once he has left [the monastery]? Whom
will you accuse of being an apostate if you will teach, as you
ought to, that we are free here— and are not involved in any
sin? You may perhaps want some advice from me; indeed you
don’t need my counsel. I am certain you will not do or allow any-
thing to be done which would be contrary to the gospel, even if
all the monasteries would have to perish.

I am, of course, displeased with that tumultuous exodus of
which I have heard . 6 They 7 should have separated from one an-
other by mutual consent and in peace . 8 Maybe this 9 is a punish-
ment for a vow taken in an evil and impious way— so that what was
constituted 10 in impious unanimity is now being dissolved in dis-
order. I would not, however, consider it right and correct that they
should be called back, even though they themselves may have
acted incorrectly and improperly. I also think you cannot hinder
any others who may want to leave a monastery. Therefore it would
be best to arrange during your coming chapter meeting , 11 by means

8 See L. Schiitz (ed.), Thomas Lexikon: “antecedens."

4 Luther is obviously referring to the events in Wittenberg; see p. 337, n. 4.
In the following lines Luther is trying to convince Link of the correctness
of his own stand on monastic vows; see pp. 283 ff., 297 ff., 310, 329 ff.
Link, as vicar general, called a chapter meeting of the Order to meet in
Wittenberg early in 1522. This meeting was to deal with the problem of
monastic vows, especially since Luther's, Karlstadt’s, and Zwilling’s opposition
to monasticism had had such drastic results. See also ARG 6 ( 1909), 402 ff.

5 One of the printed editions of this letter offers a text which has to be trans-
lated: “All these things are contrary to our gospel.”

6 See p. 356.

7 I.e., the monks who have abandoned monastic life.

8 See p. 356.

9 I.e., the disturbances that accompanied the departure of the monks from
monastic life.

10 I.e., the monastic community.

11 See note 4.

358

TO WENCESLAS LINK, DECEMBER 18, 1521

of a public proclamation, that freedom be given to those who wish
to leave— according to the example of Cyrus. 12 No one should be
delayed or forced to remain in a monastery against his will. Mean-
while you, like Jeremiah, should remain in the service of Babylon, 13
for I, too, shall remain in this cowl and manner of life, if the world
does not change. Under no circumstances do I see that you could
act differently in this case. I do not want you to rule over ungodli-
ness or become a leader in it. If you read my little book on vows, 14
you will understand my opinion.

I was at Wittenberg, but was not allowed to enter the monas-
tery, so that I would not betray myself. 15 Hence it is up to you
to dare something in this matter, since you see that time and the
word of God demand this. I admit that these things were here-
tofore unheard of, but at the same time [one has to admit] that
they cannot be refuted. I have become convinced by what I saw. 16
You have Philip 17 and others whom you may consult.

I was pleased that you summoned this chapter meeting to
Wittenberg. I do not know where our dearest Father Staupitz is. 18
I hear, however, that he is now a man of the court and stays with
the “idol” of Salzburg, 19 which makes me sad about this excellent
man. Please greet him, for I believe that on the basis of my little
books he will understand who I am and what I am doing. Presently
I am working on a Postil 20 and the translation of the Bible into
German. 21

Farewell from the wilderness. 22
December 18, 1521 Yours,

Martin Luther

12 II Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1-3.

13 Jer. 40:5-6.

14 See p. 331, n. 5.
is See p. 350.

i® It is not clear whether Luther is referring to his experiences during his
recent visit to Wittenberg or to his life as a monk.

1 7 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3.

is John von Staupitz; see p. 64, n. 1; pp. 72, 138.

i 9 I.e., the archbishop of Salzburg, Matthew Lang; see p. 99, n. 14; p. 191,
n. 2.

20 The Advent portion of the W artburg Postil ; see pp. 237 ff.

21 See p. 352, n. 16; p. 356, n. 5.

22 See p. 263, n. 36.

359

LETTERS

111

To Nicholas von Amsdorf
Wartburg, January 13, 1522

The major part of this letter deals with eschatological questions .
Replying to Amsdorf, Luther discusses the question of the where-
abouts of departed souls and the nature of purgatory . In addition
while contrasting his work on the translation of the Bible with
previous translations, and voicing his concern that the translation
on which he is working be done well, Luther informs von Amsdorf
that he is thinking of coming to Wittenberg for help on the project .
He also comments briefly on the “Zwickau prophets ”

On Nicholas von Amsdorf , see p . 218 .

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 422-423.

To the Right Reverend Mr. Nicholas Amsdorf,

Licentiate of Sacred Theology , 1 canon at Wittenberg, etc.

Jesus

Concerning your "souls,” I have not enough [insight into the prob-
lem] to answer you . 2 I am inclined to agree with your opinion
that the souls of the just are asleep and that they do not know
where they are up to the Day of Judgment. I am drawn to this
opinion by the word of Scripture, “They sleep with their fathers.” 3
The dead who were raised by Christ and by the apostles testify to
this fact , 4 since they were as if they had just awakened from sleep
and didn’t know where they had been. To this must be added the
ecstatic experiences of many saints. I have nothing with which I
could overthrow this opinion. But I do not dare to affirm that this 6
is true for all souls in general, because of the ecstasy of Paul , 6

1 On this degree, see p. 264, n. 3.

2 In a letter which is not extant von Amsdorf apparently asked Luther for
his opinion on the whereabouts of the souls of the departed, as well as for
his understanding of purgatory.

3 II Sam. 7:12; I Kings 2:10.

4 1.e., that the departed are asleep and that they do not know where they are.
5 See note 4.

«II Cor. 12:2.

360

TO NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF, JANUARY 13, 1522

and the ascension of Elijah 7 and of Moses 8 (who certainly did not
appear as phantoms on Mount Tabor). 9 Who knows how God
deals with the departed souls? Can't [God] just as well make them
sleep on and off (or for as long as he wishes [them to sleep]),
just as he overcomes with sleep those who live in the flesh? And
again, that passage in Luke 16 [:23 ff.] concerning Abraham and
Lazarus, although it does not force the assumption of a universal
[capacity of feeling on the part of the departed], yet it attributes a
capacity of feeling to Abraham and Lazarus, and it is hard to twist
this passage to refer to the Day of Judgment.

I think the same about the condemned souls; some may feel
punishments immediately after death, but others may be spared
from [punishments] until that Day [of Judgment]. For the
reveler [in that parable] confesses that he is tortured; 10 and the
Psalm says, “Evil will catch up with the unjust man when he
perishes.” 11 You perhaps also refer this either to the Day of Judg-
ment or to the passing anguish of physical death. Then my opinion
would be that this is uncertain. It is most probable, however, that
with few exceptions, all [departed souls] sleep without possessing
any capacity of feeling. Consider now who the “spirits in prison”
were to whom Christ preached, as Peter writes: 12 Could they not
also sleep until the Day [of Judgment]? 13 Yet when Jude says
concerning the Sodomites that they suffer the pain of eternal fire,
he is speaking of a present [fire]. 14

MI Kings 2:11.

8 An assumption based on Deut. 34:5-6, which is supported by pseudepi-
graphical literature.

9 Matt. 17:3. According to tradition this took place on Mount Tabor; see
WA, Br 8, 662.

10 Luke 16:24.

11 Ps. 140:11 (Vulgate, but RSV numbering).

121 Pet. 3:19.

13 The translation here is based on the manuscript copy of this letter. The
WA, Br editor conjectures the text to be as follows: “ annon et iUi dormire in
eum usque diem potuerint?” i.e., “couldn't they [the departed souls] also have
slept up to this day [when Christ preached to them]?" It seems to this editor
that the text offered by the manuscript copy has to be retained. The “Day
of Judgment" in the sentence here (the “fire” in the future, so to speak)
seems to be the contrast required by the conjunction autem , i.e., “yet,” with
which the reference to Jude is introduced, which speaks of a “present fire.”

14 Jude vs. 7.

361

LETTERS

On purgatory I have this opinion : 15 I do not think, as the
sophists 18 dream, that it is a certain place, nor do I think that
all who remain outside heaven or hell are in purgatory. (Who
could assert this, since [the departed souls] could sleep suspended
between heaven, earth, hell, purgatory, and all else, just as could
happen with the living, when they are in a deep sleep?) I think
purgatory is that punishment 17 which they call a foretaste of hell
and under which Christ, Moses, Abraham, David, Jacob, Job,
Hezekiah, and many others suffered. This punishment is similar to
hell, yet restricted in terms of time; it is purgatory for me regard-
less of whether this punishment takes place emotionally 18 or
physically , 19 since we attribute such punishment to purgatory. Yet
while it is declared that this punishment takes place physically, and
that this is certain, it also cannot be denied that [this punishment]
takes place emotionally, although this cannot be proven. Conse-
quently you are by no means in error, whatever you may believe
here. Even if you deny purgatory, you are no heretic, since you
do not deny that the punishment [of purgatory] can be felt
physically and emotionally, but you deny only that purgatory is
a definite place and that it has been proven that such punishment
is felt emotionally . 20 This I deny too. For they who feel that

15 For the development of Luther’s understanding of purgatory, see W A 1,
555 ff.; LW 31, 125 ff. (1518), and the Srrudcald Articles , II, 2 (1536/37).
WA 50, 204 ff.

16 This is the term Humanists and Reformers generally applied to Scholastic
theologians. Since the doctrine concerning purgatory was developed by the
pre-Scholastic theologians, however (especially St. Gregory the Great, 540?-
604, and even St. Augustine, 354-430), this term has to be applied here to
all the theologians of the papistic church who dealt with this subject. The
Council of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) defined the official teach-
ing of the Roman Catholic Church in terms which Luther rejected in his
discussion with von Amsdorf. See O.D.C.C., pp. 1125 f.; Denzinger, No. 693.
For Thomas Aquinas’ opinion on this subject, see Summa Theologica, Suppl.,
ques. 69.

17 The manuscript copy of this letter offers a text which has to be trans-
lated: “[I do think] . . . purgatory to be their punishment [i.e., of those
who are departed],” whereby the “I do think” has to be supplied on the
basis of the second sentence of this paragraph.

18 I.e., that the punishment can be felt by man’s conscience as pangs of hell.

19 Luther wrote: 44 extra corpus ... in corpore i.e., "outside of the body
. . . in the body.” This is a reference to II Cor. 12:2 according to the
Vulgate.

20 Were von Amsdorf s letter available, this passage would be clearer. It
seems that he rejected the concept of purgatory as a definite place and also

362

TO NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF, JANUARY 13, 1522

punishment physically are actually no longer in the body, but
dead, as far as life itself [and the senses] are concerned. And
so it is not possible for you to deny that this punishment can be
felt this way, that is emotionally . 21 This is how I see it. If you
have something else to say, let me know.

Karlstadt’s wedding makes me very happy. I know the girl . 22
May the Lord strengthen him as a good example to fight and to
lessen the papistic unchastity . 23 Amen. I shall deliver my small
present in due time, after Easter . 24 In the meantime I shall trans-
late the Bible , 25 although I have here shouldered a burden beyond
my power. Now I realize what it means to translate, and why
no one has previously undertaken it who would disclose his name . 26
Of course I will not be able to touch the Old Testament all by
myself and without the co-operation of all of you. Therefore if it
could somehow be arranged that I could have a secret room with
any one of you, I would soon come and with your help would
translate the whole book from the beginning, so that it would be
a worthy translation for Christians to read. For I hope we will
give a better translation to our Germany than the Latins have . 27
It is a great and worthy undertaking on which we all should work,
since it is a public matter and should be dedicated to the common
good. Reply what hope there is concerning this idea. I do not
aim to hide myself all the time, since this is impossible, [but I

rejected the idea that it could be proven that the pains of purgatory can be
felt (only?) emotionally. Thus it seems that he wanted Luther to give a
clear definition of what purgatory actually is. Luther agrees with von
Amsdorf, at least in part, since in the concluding sentence of this paragraph
he obviously affirms the idea that the pains of purgatory can be felt
emotionally.

21 Even though this cannot be proven; in this Luther agreed with von Amsdorf.
22 Andrew Karlstadt (see p. 79, n. 12) got engaged to a certain wealthy
Anna von Mochau in December; they were married on January 19, 1522; see
WA, Br 2, 424, n. 12.

23 See pp. 321 f., 328, and the discussion concerning the vow of celibacy on
pp. 277 ff., 283 ff., 293 f., 297 ff., 310, 329 ff.

24 Luther apparently intended to return to Wittenberg in April; see p. 356.

25 On the translation of the Bible, see p. 352, n. 16; p. 356, n. 5.

26 Luther was familiar with anonymous translations of the Bible which had
been published before he began to work on his project. The best-known
German Bible before Luther s was printed by G. Zainer in Augsburg in 1475
in an edition of about one thousand to fifteen hundred copies. See p. 352,
n. 16; WA, DB 6, 595 ff.

27 Reference to the Vulgate.

363

LETTERS

wish it] to be known that I prefer to hide and not have people
think I wish to show up in public. I believe that this way the
timid and the evil would be satisfied when they find out that I
want to hide.

The “Zwickau prophets” should not disturb you too quickly. 28
You have Scripture passages (Deuteronomy 13 [:1 ff.] and I John
4 [:1] ) which assure you that you do not sin when you delay a
decision on their case and first test the spirits, whether they are
from God. Meanwhile the Lord will show what is to be done.
At first glance I am highly suspicious of their boasting that they
have conversations with God in his majesty. More on this to
Philip. 29

Farewell and pray for me.

January 13, 1522

Yours,

Martin Luther

112

To Philip Melanchthon
Wartburg, January 13, 1522

Luther comments on the latest development of his controversy
with the Archbishop of Mainz and Wolfgang Capito (see pp. 344
ff.). He also makes suggestions for dealing with the “Zwickau
prophets” (see below, note 28), especially with their understanding
of baptism. Promising to deal with this subject further upon his

28 Toward the end of December, 1521, the “Zwickau prophets," i.e., Nicholas
Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stiibner, came to Wittenberg from
Zwickau (a small, highly industrialized town in the southern part of Saxony
and a “hotbed of religious revolt” [Schwiebert, p. 538]). They claimed to
be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God.
When they arrived in Wittenberg that city was on the verge of religious
anarchy: the Augustinians were abandoning monastic life and private masses
were being abolished; see p. 281, n. 24; pp. 324 f.; 337. The religious
enthusiasm and social fanaticism of the “Zwickau prophets” only added fuel
to the fire and touched off the Wittenberg disturbances. See p. 386, n. 1;
O.D.C.C., p. 1491.

29 Philip Melanchthon; see p. 77, n. 3; pp. 365 ff.

364

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JANUARY 13, 1522

return to Wittenberg ( necessary due to his work on the translation
of the Bible), Luther asks Melanchthon to prepare some quarters
for him there.

Some of the printed editions of this letter offer a great number
of text variations . Since they do not seem to influence the basic
meaning of the text, however, the translation is based on the text
offered by one manuscript copy of this letter made available by
the WA, Br edition.

On Philip Melanchthon, see p. 77, n. 3.

Text in Latin ; WA, Br 2, 424-427 .

To Philip Melanchthon, Christ’s servant and faithful
steward, my brother

Greetings. Had the letter of the man of Mainz come alone, it
would have won . 1 Now, however, since this one by Fabricius 2 was
added to it, both letters betray guile and deceit, and therefore I am
extremely displeased with Fabricius. I wanted to put an end to
ungodliness. Now that orator 3 takes up the cause of ungodliness
and teaches the [Arch] bishop to confess his personal sins, believing
that this way Luther is fooled in a neat way. I shall restrain
myself and not treat that man as he deserves— at least in the first
letter. But I shall show him that I am alive . 4

Now let me deal with the “prophets .” 5 Before I say anything
else, I do not approve of your timidity, since you are stronger in

1 Cardinal Albrecht to Martin Luther: December 21, 1521. WA, Br 2, No.
448; S-J 2, 80 f. This was the answer to No. 106. The Cardinal promised in
this letter to behave in a way becoming to a pious sovereign and bishop
of the church. He also pointed out that Luther really had no reason to
complain, since the idol at Halle (see p. 316, n. 10) had been abolished
long ago.

2 The Archbishop’s letter was forwarded to Wittenberg by Wolfgang
Fabricius Capito (see p. 305, n. 2; p. 316, n. 10), who added a letter of
his own; see WA, Br 2, No. 447; Luther replied to Capito’s letter with No.
113.

3 I.e., Capito.

4 Literally: “. . . that there is breath in the nostrils of the son of man.”
This is an allusion to Isa. 2:22.

5 See p. 364, n. 28. The letter to Luther in which Melanchthon gave his
opinion of the “prophets” is not extant, but it must have shown that
Melanchthon was deeply impressed by them. See WA, Br 2, 428, n. 4.

365

LETTERS

spirit and learning than I . 6 First of all, since they bear witness to
themselves , 7 one need not immediately accept them; according to
John’s counsel, the spirits are to be tested . 8 If you cannot test
them , 0 then you have the advice of Gamaliel that you postpone
judgment . 10 Thus far I hear of nothing said or done by them that
Satan could not also do or imitate. Yet find out for me whether
they can prove [that they are called by God], for God has never
sent anyone, not even the Son himself, unless he was called through
men or attested by signs. In the old days the prophets had their
authority from the Law and the prophetic order, as we now receive
authority through men. I definitely do not want the “prophets”
to be accepted if they state that they were called by mere revela-
tion, since God did not even wish to speak to Samuel except
through the authority 11 and knowledge of Eli . 12 This is the first
thing that belongs to teaching in public.

In order to explore their individual spirit, too, you should
inquire whether they have experienced spiritual distress and the
divine birth, death, and hell . 13 If you should hear that all [their
experiences] are pleasant, quiet, devout (as they say), and
spiritual, then don’t approve of them, even if they should say that
they were caught up to the third heaven . 14 The sign of the Son
of Man is then missing , 15 which is the only touchstone 16 of Chris-
tians and a certain differentiator between the spirits. Do you want
to know the place, time, and manner of [true] conversations with

6 This probably refers to Melanchthon’s request, made in the not extant
letter (see note 5), that Luther deal directly with the “Zwickau prophets,”
an opinion Melanchthon also voiced to Spalatin and to the Electoral govern-
ment; see ARG 6 (1909), 324 f., 385 f., 390 f. ; S-J 2, 81 ff.

7 John 5:31-32; 8:13-14.

81 John 4:1.

°I.e., the spirits of the “Zwickau prophets.” This sentence is missing in some
of the printed editions of this letter.
io Acts 5:34-35.

11 1.e., that Eli had commanded Samuel to listen.

12 1 Sam. 3:4 ff.

18 Luther is using the terminology of the German mystics ( see p. 30, n. 16 ) .
He means that only he who has suffered the pangs of hell (i.e., has experi-
enced to the final degree the fact that he is a sinner) can come to faith and
be reborn. See Bainton, pp. 54 ff.; G. Rupp, The Righteousness of God:
Luther Studies , pp. 85 f., 142 ff., 188 ff.

14 II Cor. 12:2.

1 5 By this term Luther apparently understands the cross; see Matt. 24:30.
i® Luther used a Greek word here.

366

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JANUARY 13, 1522

God? Listen: “Like a lion has he broken all my bones ”; 17 “I am
cast out from before your eyes ”; 18 “My soul is filled with grief,
and my life has approached hell .” 19 The [Divine] Majesty (as
they call it) does not speak in such a direct way to man that man
could [actually] see it; but rather, “Man shall not see me and
live .” 20 [Our] nature cannot bear even a small glimmer of Gods
[direct] speaking. As a result God speaks through men [indirectly],
because not all can endure his speaking. The angel frightened
even the Virgin , 21 and also Daniel . 22 And Jeremiah pleads, “Cor-
rect me [O Lord] but in just measure ,” 23 and, “Be not a terror
to me .” 24 Why should I say more? As if the [Divine] Majesty
could speak familiarly with the Old Adam without first killing him
and drying him out so that his horrible stench 25 would not be so
foul, since God is a consuming fire! 26 The dreams and visions of
the saints are horrifying, too, at least after they are understood.
Therefore examine [them ] 27 and do not even listen if they speak
of the glorified Jesus, unless you have first heard of the crucified
Jesus 28

You will say, what does this have to do with the case? After
all, it only refutes others, and does not establish our position. But
how can I speak of our position when I am absent and do not
know what they may present against it? If they do not appeal to
anything but this passage, “He who believeth and is baptized
shall be saved,” 29 and to the fact that children cannot believe on
their own account, that does not disturb me at all. For how will
these “prophets” prove that children do not believe? Perhaps by
the fact that children do not speak and express their faith. Fine!

17 Isa. 38:13 (Vulgate).

18 Ps. 31:22 (Vulgate, but RSV numbering).

19 Ps. 88:3 (Vulgate, but RSV numbering).

20 Exod. 33:20.

21 Luke 1:29.

22 Dan. 8:16-17.

23 Jer. 10:24.

24 Jer. 17:17.

25 Exod. 5:21 (Vulgate).

26 Deut. 4:24.

27 I.e., the “Zwickau prophets.”

28 Literally: “. . . listen to the glorified Christ, unless you have first seen
the Crucified [in them].”

29 Mark 16:16.

367

LETTERS

On that basis [we have to ask] how many hours [of the day] even
we are Christians, in view of the fact that we sleep and do other
things? Can’t God in the same way keep faith in small children
during the whole time of their infancy, as if it were a continuous
sleep? Fine, you say. This confutes the opponents in the question
concerning faith already infused. 80 It is enough for now that they
are shown to be the kind of people who can prove nothing and
are moved by a false spirit.

What do you say concerning faith which is to be infused?
[Here] nothing else is left but extrinsic faith; 31 if we cannot up-
hold this, then there is nothing else to be debated, and baptism of
small children simply has to be rejected.

You say, aren’t the examples for extrinsic faith weak? I reply
that there is nothing stronger. These “prophets,” or all the devils,
should show one weak example of extrinsic faith! You quote the
passage where Samuel prays for Saul, 32 but this has nothing to
do with it. Samuel grieved for Saul, he did not pray [for him];
or if he prayed, he did not pray in faith, that is, he did not believe
he would obtain that for which he was praying but placed the out-
come [of his prayer] in doubt and left it to the arbitrariness of
God. It was the same as when David prayed for his little son, 33
or when many other people pray for many other things. If he had
been certain he would receive, he surely would have, because the
promise of Christ in Matthew 21 [:22] stands fast, “Whatever you
may ask for, believe that you will receive it and you shall receive
it.” And in Matthew 18 [:19], “If two on earth,” etc. This fact
cannot be shaken: it is impossible that that for which one prays
will not happen if one believes that it will happen. Otherwise
the whole doctrine of faith would waver, and personal faith, which

30 Luther is using the Scholastic term “fides infusaT (a term parallel to
gratia infusa ), i.e., faith which is infused by God through baptism. See
pp. 156 ff.; O.D.C.C., pp. 491 f.

31 Fides aliena, i.e., faith of transsubjective character. For Luther this
means that faith originates in God, outside the individual. He believed
that God creates faith in the individual through the Holy Spirit (who works
through Word and sacrament), thus fulfilling His plan of salvation; in this
plan the faith of the neighbor who intercedes on behalf of the individual is
an important factor.

32 1 Sam. 15:35.

33 II Sam. 12:16 ff.

568

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JANUARY 13, 1522

is based on [Christ’s] promise, would be of no value. Indeed [the
faith in which my neighbor intercedes on my behalf] 84 belongs
to me personally but is really also someone else s faith , 35 so far as
my neighbor is concerned; nevertheless it is necessary that [that for
which the neighbor intercedes] in faith should happen in him [on
whose behalf the neighbor makes the intercession .] 86 All the ex-
amples from the gospel pertain to this. For Christ has never re-
jected a single man who was brought to him through someone else s
faith, but accepted all . 37 What more should I say? The testimonies
and examples of the whole Scripture are on the side of extrinsic
faith, that is, on the side of personal faith, which attains faith and
whatever is desired for someone else . 88

Now one point remains unresolved, which is whether the
church believes faith is infused into infants. This question might
perhaps arise in connection with the discussion of the [nature of
the] church, rather than of extrinsic faith and its efficaciousness.
What extrinsic faith is able to do is not subject to discussion, since
all things are possible to him who believes . 39 [The question of the
church], however, is one of reality and not of theory . 40 We cannot
debate whether the church has to believe that faith is infused

34 Fides aliena; see note 31.

33 See note 34.

36 This sentence, beginning “but is really . . can also be translated as
follows: “. . . is really someone else’s faith, notwithstanding the fact that
it is necessary that that which the neighbor believes happens [also] in himself.”

37 E.g., Mark 2:3 ff.

38 With reference to infant baptism, Luther means in this paragraph that the
faith of the parents and godparents who intercede on behalf of the infant is
extrinsic faith in relation to the infant, and is the basis for the “personal
faith” of the infant, which is necessary for baptism (see note 31 and Mark
16:16). This should not be understood, however, as meaning that the faith
of parents and godparents would qualify the child for baptism and that
this faith of parents and godparents would be the basis for infant baptism,
or that someone can vicariously believe for someone else. Throughout his
teaching Luther insists that God himself creates faith in the infant; the
parents and godparents only present the infant in obedience to God s W ord,
believing that God will create faith in the infant, and interceding that he
do so. The extrinsic faith becomes personal faith, i.e., part of the individual,
whether child or adult, only through God’s action. See WA 11, 452 f.; WA
15, 710; WA 17H, 82; WA 26, 156, 163 f.; WA 301, 219 . On Luthers
understanding of baptism, see R. Prenter, “Luther on Word and Sacrament,
More About Luther (“Martin Luther Lectures,” Vol. II), p. 81 ff.

3 » Mark 9:23.

40 Luther wrote: “de facto . . . de tore."

369

LETTERS

into infan ts, since the church has the authority not to baptize
infants at all, nor is there any Scripture passage which could force
the church to believe this , 41 as there are Bible passages for other
tenets.

What should we do here? Do we not approve of the theory?
Who can see faith? Therefore we have to proceed to the [question
of] the confession of faith, since confession for salvation is made
with the mouth . 42 What does the church confess that it believes
in this article ? 43 Is it not this, that children also participate in
the benefits and promises of Christ? One may object here, how-
ever: what if Augustine and those whom you call the church, or
whom you believe are the church, have erred at this point? Who
will make us certain that the church has to believe this , 44 since
we cannot prove it? This objection should be contradicted as
follows: there may be no law, but there is the fact that this 45 is
believed in the church. For who can be sure that Augustine be-
lieved in the Trinity if one does not trust his confession? I am
certain that [Augustine’s] confession agrees with Scripture , 46 but
I do not know whether he believes what he confesses. But I see
it as a special miracle of God that the article that infants are to
be baptized is the only one which has never been denied, not
even by heretics. No one’s confession opposes it; on the con-
trary the constant and unanimous confession of the whole world
supports this argument 47 To deny, however, that this is the con-
fession of the true and legitimate church, I consider tremendous
ungodliness. This seems to me to be the same as if one were to
deny the existence of the church. If this were not so, no
doubt the church would have issued some contrary statement
at least once, since the faith of the church has never ceased, and

41 1.e., that faith is infused into infants.

« Rom. 10:10.

43 Luther is referring to the Nicene Creed, which in the concluding para-
graph reads: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” which does
not exclude infant baptism, as Luther argues here.

44 1.e., infant baptism.

45 1.e., infant baptism. For a different interpretation of this sentence, see
WA, Br 8, 662.

46 On Augustine, see De Genesi ad litteram, 10, 23, 39 (MPL 34, 426);
Epistolae 98; 166, 7, 21; 185, 9, 39; 187, 8, 26; Ennar. in Psalmos, 106, 3.

47 For infant baptism.

370

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON, JANUARY 18, 1522

since the church was never without confession of its faith. You,
as an understanding man, will deduce further conclusions from
this.

To present a child for baptism is nothing else but to offer
it to Christ, who is present on earth and opens [his] hands of
grace [toward the child]; Christ has shown throughout his entire
life that he accepts whoever is brought to him. Why should we
then have any doubts at this point? This one thing, at least, we
have taken away from these “prophets,” namely, that they could
prove their ideas, since they lack example and testimony; but
we have both, and their testimony does not withstand ours. For
who will argue this way: One has to believe and be baptized , 48
therefore infants are not to be baptized ? 49 [The “prophets”]
certainly cannot draw this conclusion from this passage, since it
does not prove that children do not believe. They presuppose
this, and have to prove it on some other basis; but they are unable
to do this. What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and
Scripture is for it. On the basis of that same sophistry, they
could also take away circumcision, saying: small children do not
have Abraham’s faith , 50 therefore they should not have the sign
of this same faith. We are certain that circumcision had the same
power as baptism. Therefore I do not see why, only on the basis
of God’s authority and of this example , 51 children shouldn’t be
baptized. There is only one difference: baptism is free and not
compulsory like circumcision. It was therefore not necessary that
baptism be bound to any certain times, ages, places, or other ex-
ternals, since it is completely free in itself. Therefore what was
then commanded to one people concerning the eighth day is now
said to all people of every age: “He who believes . . . ,” etc . 52

More on this when I see you . 53 I have always expected Satan
to touch this sore, but he did not want to do it through the
papists. It is among us and among our followers that he is stirring

48 On the basis of Mark 16:16.

49 Because they cannot have faith of which they can be conscious and which
they can express in word or deed.

50 Gen. 12:1 ff.; 17:10 ff.; Rom. 4:1 ff.

51 1.e., the argument concerning circumcision.

52 Mark 16:16; see also note 50.

58 On Luther's intention to return to Wittenberg, see pp. 356, 363.

371

LETTERS

up this grievous schism, but Christ will quickly trample him under
our feet. 54

I would also like to know how you understand that passage
in I Corinthians 7 [:14], "Otherwise your children would be un-
clean, but now they are holy” [Vulgate]. Do you want to have
this understood only of adults, or of the sanctity of the flesh [in
general]? I wish it would be demonstrated from this passage that
according to apostolic custom, and in the time of the apostles,
small children were baptized. Although I see what could be said
concerning this sanctification, yet I would also like to have your
opinion. Why should the Apostle [Paul] say this only of children,
since all things are holy to the holy, and to the clean all things
are clean? 55

Keep the little book against the [Arch] bishop of Mainz, 56 so
that it can go out [one day] and serve as a general censure, should
others go insane like that. 57 Please prepare a lodging for me, since
the translation [of the Bible] will compel me to return to Witten-
berg. 58 Pray the Lord that this may be done in agreement with
his will. I wish, however, to stay hidden as much as possible; 59
meanwhile I shall proceed with what I have begun.

Farewell.

January 13 , 1522 Yours,

Martin Luther

113

To Wolfgang Fabricius Capito
Wartburg, January 17, 1522

Following his controversy with Cardinal Albrecht, archbishop of
Mainz ( see pp. 344 ff.), Luther in this letter answers a letter from
Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, one of the Archbishop's officials .

54 Rom. 16:20.

55 Titus 1:15.

5® See pp. 348 ff.

57 And sell indulgences and/or persecute the married priests; see pp. 344 ff.

58 See note 53.

5® For a similar statement, see pp. 363 f.

372

TO WOLFGANG FABRICIUS CAPITO, JANUARY 17, 1522

Pointing out that true Christian love does not ignore faults and
sins , not even those of high officials , but rather reproves them ,
Luther charges Capito with hypocrisy. Although in the realm of
faith sin has to be reproved, Luther argues, in the realm of love
it can be endured after it has been reproved and the reproof has
been humbly accepted. Challenging the CardinaTs reply to the
ultimatum Luther issued on December 1, 1521 (see p. 339), Luther
demands that the Cardinal document his willingness to reform by
his actions: the Cardinal should resign his office in the papistic
church and become a faithful parish priest ; he should immediately
cease the persecution of parish priests who had married, and nullify
any actions taken against them.

Capito was greatly disturbed by this letter. He therefore came
to Wittenberg in the spring of 1522 to seek a reconciliation with
Luther. He was able to regain Luthers friendship. Soon after this
visit Capito asked to be discharged from the service of Albrecht
of Mainz, and by July he had settled in Strassburg, where he
openly supported the Reformation.

The text variations of this letter (which is only available in
printed editions) are so numerous that they could be noted only
occasionally. The translation is based on the text made available
to the WA, Br editor; it is assumed that his text comes as close to
Luthers original as possible.

On Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, see p. 305, n. 2.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 430-434.

Martin Luther to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito
Greetings in the Lord

As much as your Cardinal s 1 letter 2 * brought me joy, 8 so much your
letter 4 made me downcast, my Fabricius. This sad and unfriendly
beginning may perhaps disturb you. But it is your own fault, since
you destroyed the credibility and weight of the Cardinals letter by

1 The cardinal referred to in this letter is Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz; see
pp. 44 f.

2 See p. 365, n. 1.

8 See p. 365; cf. pp. 353 ff.

4 See p. 365, n. 2.

373

LETTERS

your inopportune rhetorics. Among the many things that concerned
me was especially the fact that you write that you have set out on
another way than ours to further the [cause of the] gospel . 5 What
else can this mean but that either your way or ours is to be con-
demned? Yet the ministry of the Spirit ought not have any
[internal] discrepancy at all! Paul commends Timothy to the Co-
rinthians since they both walked the same way . 6 Due to my
friendship for you, I certainly would have qualified your state-
ment concerning the “other way” if you yourself had not forced me,
through your own interpretation, to the following understanding:
the [cause of the] gospel is being furthered by glossing over the
actions of sovereigns, sparing them criticism, excusing their actions,
and (as your words say) by not insolently provoking them to a
fight . 7 This is your way of behaving; according to our opinion,
this is plain flattery and a denial of Christian truth . 8 I would not
even want my enemies to be content with this type of opinion; it
lacks so much that I cannot even wish that the gospel were helped
by this approach. There is nothing that I would avert more. May
Christ grant that you accomplish something, but may he preserve
you, and us, so that you may do no harm.

I know you demand gentleness and kindness. But what do a
Christian and a flatterer have in common? Christianity is some-
thing direct and simple. It looks at things as they are, and it
speaks accordingly. Even the pagans wish evil to those who flatter
their friends about their vices . 9 How, then, could the truth of
Christ flatter evil and ungodliness?

Nevertheless we shall expound to you also our way of pro-
moting the cause of the gospel and expose it confidently to your
judgment and the worlds. We are not afraid that the crowds will
be offended by this “biting,” as you write. For whom did Christ
not offend? Whom did he not reprove? The Spirit of truth

5 WA, Br 2, 416.

«I Cor. 16:10.

7 WA, Br 2, 419.

8 One of the printed editions offers an addition which has to be translated:
“. . . and exactly that partiality [a Greek word is used here] which Scripture
detests so vehemently that there is nothing more vehemently [detested in
Scripture than this].”

9 This is a reference to Plutarch's work on flattery; see p. 307.

374

TO WOLFGANG FABRICIUS CAPITO, JANUARY 17, 1522

reproves 10 and does not flatter. He 11 reproves not just some peo-
ple, however, but the whole world. Therefore we think that every-
thing ought to be straightforwardly censured, reproved, con-
founded, and that nothing should be spared, bypassed, or excused,
so that the unshackled, pure, and clear truth remains victoriously
among us.

To continue, it is a totally different thing to accept, endure,
and assist with greatest gentleness those whom you have rebuked.
This belongs to the realm of love and service, and not to the
ministry of the Word. Even Christ, when he has reproved all peo-
ple with the greatest severity, wishes then to be like a hen to them
and gather them under his wings . 12 Love bears all things, endures
all things, hopes all things . 13 Faith, however, or the Word, endures
nothing but rather reproves and consumes, or as Jeremiah says,
plucks out, destroys, and overthrows, and, “Cursed be he who does
the work of the Lord in a cheating way .” 14

There is a difference, dear Fabricius, between praising evil or
minimizing its importance, and healing it with kindness and gentle-
ness. Before all else one has to say what is right and what is
wrong. When your listener has accepted this, then he has to be
endured, and, as Paul says, he who is weak in faith is to be ac-
cepted . 15 Your way, however, brings about a situation in which
truth is never recognized, and yet it is nevertheless assumed that
evil is corrected by such flattery and false kindness. Thus the
word of Jeremiah is fulfilled, “They have healed the wounds of
my people [lightly saying, Teace, peace, where there is no peace],”
and again, “They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that no one
turns from his wickedness .” 16

I also hope that we never behaved in such a way that one
could accuse us of having lacked charity in accepting and endur-
ing the weak. We do not lack gentleness, kindness, peace, and joy
with someone who agrees with our word yet cannot be perfect at

io John 16:8.

11 I.e., Christ or the Holy Spirit.

12 Matt. 23:37.
i»I Cor. 13:7.

14 Jer. 1:10; 48:10 (Vulgate).

15 Rom. 14:1.

i« Jer. 8:11; 23:14.

375

LETTERS

once. We are content that he has meanwhile recognized truth and
has not resisted or condemned it. Whatever follows is [done on the
basis of] love, in which he is admonished to act according to what
he has recognized to be true. Had your Cardinal written this letter
with a sincere heart— for goodness’ sake, with what great joy and
humility would I kneel before his feet, not considering myself
worthy of kissing the dust of his feet! Are we not also unclean and
filled with sin as a bag is filled with waste ? 17 Let him only accept
the Word of God, and we shall be his slaves.

There is, however, no grace, no love, no kindness for those
who condemn or despise doctrine itself and the ministry of the
Word, or persecute it cunningly— or rather, it is the highest kind of
love to resist their fury and ungodliness with all strength and in
every possible way.

Yet if your Cardinal has shown himself to be such a tre-
mendous hypocrite due to your influence (which I suspect), then
you yourself can very well see that this should not move us in any
way. You people could not fool us since we are not ignorant of
Satan’s designs ; 18 we can both justify and condemn anyone on the
basis of his words . 19 Your Cardinal writes that by Gods grace from
now on he wants to do what is fitting for an official of the church . 20
If he says this in all honesty, and you have not suggested it to him,
then he is certainly ready to take off the mask of a cardinal and
the pomp of a bishop and dedicate himself to the ministry of the
Word. Yet who will make us believe this? It is impossible that
he should thus 21 be able to administer even a small parish. And
it would be hard for him to resign and become a parish priest.
[You object here:] who will dare to require this of him? I reply:
how can you be sure if you do not reveal this truth 22 to him? After
this is done, then be kind to him and overlook [any faults he may
have]. But he has to know where he is sinning and where he is

17 Luther wrote sentina, i.e., the lowest part of a ship where the bilge water is.

18 See p. 354; see also II Cor. 2:11.

Matt. 12:37.

20 WA, Br 2, 421; S-J 2, 80; see p. 365, n. 1.

21 One of the printed editions offers a text which has to be translated:
“. . . that he [i.e., the Cardinal] be on the way of salvation as long as he
is bishop of so many churches, since he is hardly able to administer. . . ."

22 I.e., tnat he has to become a faithful parish priest.

576

TO WOLFGANG FABRICIUS CAPITO, JANUARY 17, 1522

not sinning. Then work so that he does not sin; or if he has sinned,
sustain him in love. But do not tolerate it or bypass it either out of
Christian [modesty] or human propriety if he goes astray in an
ungodly way. For this is what is accomplished by that cruel flattery
which pretends to be either Christian or human moderation.

How can I believe that what you write is true , 23 that the mar-
ried priest is freed? 24 How can I believe what the Cardinal writes,
that the reasons which led me to write my little book had already
been removed a long time ago? 25 This is a fine liberation! As if
it would not have been better to kill [the priest ]! 26 You forced
him to abjure his wife , 27 contrary to his conscience, and this now
causes him great grief. For goodness' sake, do you people also
tempt the Holy Spirit? 28 Is it not that you persist in rejecting the
marriage of priests until you nullify the renunciation to which
you forced this man and [renounce] the violence with which you
have brought about the divorce? You say she was a whore . 29
Excellent orator! This should have been investigated in advance.
And even if she really were a whore, why do you rage against him
alone but constantly bypass your brothels in Halberstadt, Mainz,
and Magdeburg and the other innumerable ones , 30 as if your ears
were closed? You see, Fabricius, your rhetoric is no good in this
case. You people should certainly have been satisfied when he
stated that she was his wife, or you should have refuted Paul,
who most clearly condemns that celibacy by calling it a demonic
doctrine . 31 If he lied in saying that she was his wife, it would have
been his own danger, and you would not have been responsible.

You argue that this new marriage would have had to end in

23 WA, Br 2, 419; see p. 365, nn. 1, 2.

24 The Cardinal put certain priests in prison because they had married; see
note 27; p. 342, n. 20.

25 WA, Br 2, 421; S-J 2, 80, regarding Against the Idol at Halle; see pp. 344
ff.; p. 316, n. 10.

2 « See p. 354.

27 Capito was present when Balthasar Zeiger, pastor of Vatterode, a small
town near Mansfeld, had to abjure his marriage; apparently Luther is think-
ing of him. See WA, Br 2, 435, n. 22.

28 Acts 5:9.

29 WA, Br 2, 419.

3° See p. 343, n. 25.

31 1 Tim. 4:1 ff.; see pp. 277 f.

577

LETTERS

divorce, if he got disgusted with the hardships of marriage . 82 I
think you don t believe that yourself! For how does it affect the
rightness of a doctrine that the wicked abuse good institutions?
We do not require of you people that you make available to us
marriages without all hardships, but only that you not condemn the
teaching and practice [of marriage for priests ]. 33 Concerning the
marriage of priests, we affirm only that according to God’s Word
priests may marry. The Provost of Kemberg 34 is a man about
whom all things are praiseworthy. He lacks anything that anyone
might possibly call instability, unless perhaps men would be un-
stable just because you are afraid they will be. Nothing changes
just because of your fear or our hope, nor do people’s actions
change, to say nothing of the words of God. Otherwise this fear
would prevent us from attempting to follow any of the divine
commandments.

You see, my Fabricius, how I am disturbed by these great
arguments, so that I cannot believe that your Cardinal wrote this
letter with a sincere heart. Of course I say nothing of the tre-
mendous tyranny with which he 35 so ignominiously removed
Andrew Kauxdorff 30 from his pulpit in Magdeburg; your Cardinal
has hardly anyone who can compare with him. One day you
people will be sorry for this.

For goodness’ sake, my Fabricius, do you think this Luther is
a man who would ignore all that if only he is coaxed with a flat-
tering letter— in spite of the fact that your actions are abominable?
Are you people not content that we are willing to forgive and
endure in love? Do you even demand that we also justify [your
actions], that is, that we deny true doctrine itself and replace
it with ungodliness? Excellent Fabricius, you tempt me enough,

32 WA, Br 2, 418.

33 One of the printed editions offers a text in which a sentence is added
which has to De translated: “Dispute it with God, who decrees these
things which, due to man's instability, are so badly observed.”

34 Bartholomew Bemhardi; see p. 342, n. 20.

35 One of the printed editions offers a text which tries to modify this and
has to be translated: “you people.”

36 Andrew Kauxdorff of Torgau had studied theology at the University
of Cologne and the University of Wittenberg. He was cathedral preacher
in Magaeburg and had to leave his office in September, 1521, due to the
Cardinal’s pressure. On Kauxdorff, see WA, Br 2, 435, n. 29.

378

TO WOLFGANG FABRICIUS CAPITO, JANUARY 17, 1522

and more than enough! And I am answering you in a very kind
way, even more than kindly. You deserved a far sharper reply!
You people not only do not do [anything about my demands],
but so often mock them and ridicule them with what seems to you
excellent camouflage, but to me seems utterly absurd. We 37 shall
defend the godly doctrine with all the strength at our command,
even if it should offend heaven or hell.

Thus you have a most obedient servant in Luther, as you have
always had, if only you are a friend of piety— but an outspoken
despiser if you and your Cardinal should continue to trifle with
what is a holy matter. Summarizing: [I am] ready to die for you;
but whoever touches faith touches the apple of my eye . 38 My love
you have completely at your disposal, to mock or to honor as you
are pleased. We want you to have reverence for the faith and the
Word and hold it as the Holy of Holies. Expect everything from
our love, but fear our faith at all times.

I am not answering your Cardinal since I could not safely
walk the middle of the road, neither praising him nor censuring
him regarding his sincerity or hypocrisy. Through you, however,
he will understand Luthers attitude. As soon as I am convinced of
his sincerity, I shall not hesitate to throw myself humbly at his
feet.

Farewell, my Fabricius; do not doubt that I am honest with
you. As you realize, this matter is very important and sacred. We
have to live up to this, so that we do not love our brothers and
sisters more than Christ . 39

From my wilderness , 40 January 17, 1522 41

37 One of the printed editions offers a text which replaces “we” with a
long insert.

88 Literally: “the pupil of [my] eye,” an allusion to Ps. 17:8.

39 Matt. 10:37.

^0 See p. 263, n. 36.

41 The signature is missing since the text is based on printed editions in which
Luther’s name appears in the title.

579

LETTERS

114

To George Spalatin
Wartburg, January 17, 1522

Luther confirms receipt of a shipment from Spalatin. Informing
Spalatin that he will leave the Wartburg “in a short time ” Luther
specifies that this is not because of the “Zwickau prophets" (see
p. 364 , n. 28). He also comments briefly on the latest move of Duke
George of Saxony against the Reformation.

On George Spalatin, see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 443-444.

Mr. George Spalatin, secretary to the Elector of Saxony,
my dearest friend in the Lord

Jesus

Greetings. I have received everything, my Spalatin, even the bag,
yet that later than the rest . 1

I do not come to Wittenberg, nor do I change my quarters,
because of the ‘‘Zwickau prophets ,” 2 for they don't disturb me.
Yet I do not want them jailed, especially not by those who praise
our cause. *

Anything new concerning the sacramental practice at Eilen-
burg 3 either has been forced on the people or is a false rumor . 4
A little while ago I was disturbed by such rumors, so much that

1 even went to Wittenberg to see for myself ; 5 6 but now I daily
hear wilder things. The Lord willing, I shall definitely return in a

1 This shipment could not be identified; according to WA, Br 2, 444, n. 1,
it was a mailbag containing books and letters.

2 See p. 364, n. 28.

8 Eilenburg, founded in 1150, today is a highly industrialized town, about
sixty miles south of Wittenberg; at Luther’s time it was a center of the
Electoral Saxon district administration.

4 Having abandoned monastic life, Gabriel Zwilling (see pp. 324 f.; p. 337,
n. 4) went to Eilenburg at Christmas, 1521, where he introduced a radical

form of reformation, and on New Year’s Day celebrated a communion
service in which both elements were given to the communicants; see WA,
Br 2, 444, n. 4; ARG 9 (1912), 347 ff.; 10 (1913), 51 ff.

6 See p. 350.

380

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 17, 1522

short time ; 6 if I don't stay in Wittenberg I shall certainly stay
somewhere else, or wander around . 7 The cause itself demands it.

I do not want the Sovereign 8 to worry about me, although I wish
he had my faith and I his powerl

I do not doubt that we could easily make a laughingstock out
of those two stumps of smoldering firebrands 9 without resorting
to the use of bloodshed and sword. Duke George , 10 the unhappiest
of all people, is doing in this affair only what has been decreed
for him by [God], who is terrible in his plans for the children
of men. It is hatred, a hatred [Duke George] has nourished to-
ward us for some time, but he does not realize that it is hatred . 11
May the Lord have mercy upon him, if he be worthy of it. I
can’t do anything else. Please see to it that our Sovereign does
not stain his hands with the blood of these new “prophets” from
Zwickau.

Farewell and pray for me. I am satisfied with neither the
[Arch] bishops letter nor Capito’s, because of their miserable and
only too obvious deceit . 12 I have replied to Fabricius, but not to
the [Arch]bishop . 13 I shall wait until I know what he really thinks.
From the wilderness , 14 January 17, 1522

Martin Luther

I am waiting impatiently for the Bible, since I am responsible
for it . 15

6 On Luther’s plans to return, see pp. 356, 363 f., 371.

7 For similar statements, see pp. 88, 90, 94, 274.

8 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f.

9 Isa. 7:4, with reference to the “Zwickau prophets” (see p. 364, n. 28). The
WA, Br editor suggests that Luther was thinking of Storch and Stiibner.

10 Duke George of Saxony; see p. 110, n. 20.

II Duke George had complained to Duke John ( see p. 269, n. 8 ) about the
Wittenberg disturbances (see p. 386, n. 1) and asked why the Elector did
not intervene. When Duke George arrived in Niimberg on December 28,
1521, and met Hans von der Planitz, the Electoral Saxon ambassador to the
Council of Regency (see p. 70, n. 1), he informed von der Planitz at once
that he would approach the Council of Regency and demand that it put an
end to the innovations in Wittenberg and to the Lutheran heresy. See E.
Wiilcker, H. Virk (eds.), Des Kiirsdchsischen Rothes Hans von aer Planitz
Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment in Niimberg, 1521-1523 (Leipzig: Teubner,
1899), Nos. 26, 27, 31, 33.

12 See p. 365, nn. 1, 2; pp. 376 ff.
is See pp. 365, 372 ff., 379.

14 See p. 263, n. 36.

15 Apparently the Bible Luther mentioned in the postscript to No. 107, p. 352.

381

LETTERS

115

To George Spalatin 1
Wartburg, January 22?, 1522

This letter was written in behalf of Michael Kreuz, a priest who
wanted to exchange his recently acquired mass-benefice for a parish
where he would not have to celebrate mass . Spalatin , considering
the priesfs wish to be due to instability , had refused to intervene
with the Electoral government Luther criticizes Spalatin for his
lack of understanding in this case and explains the principles
which should govern brotherly admonition and correction among
Christians .

On George Spalatin , see pp. 8 f.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 445-447.

Jesus

Grace and peace in Christ

I have seen the letter 2 3 you wrote to Amsdorf 8 regarding the parish
for Kreuz, etc. 4 * * * I am deeply grieved, not so much for the sake of
Kreuz but for your sake. You are so imbued with a courtly state of
mind and immersed in it that you think and write of your brother
in an almost un-Christian way. You say you will be more careful
in the future and that you do not want to be mixed up in the in-
stability of other people, and I do not know what other grandiose
things. As a result you have forced me to write this letter to you,

1 Although the address of this letter is missing, the fact that Luther speaks
directly to Spalatin and calls him by name makes it obvious to whom the
letter was written. On the date, which is doubtful, see WA, Br 2, No. 453,
Introduction.

2 This letter is not extant.

3 Nicholas von Amsdorf; see p. 218.

4 Michael Kreuzen, or Kreuz, a young priest whom, upon Luther’s recom-

mendation, the Elector appointed to a parish in the spring of 1521; see WA,

Br 2, 283. It seems that the reformers’ attacks on the mass (see pp. 324 f.)

made it impossible for Kreuz to continue to hold his position because it in-
volved the obligation of celebrating mass. He wanted to exchange his position

with one which would not have involved such responsibility. See WA, Br 2,
284, n. 1.

382

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 22?, 1522

certainly as a brother to a brother . 5 6 Therefore I ask you for the
sake of Christ also to accept it with a brotherly heart. If you don’t
intend to do so, tell me, and I will be more mute than a fish.®

If you had considered the whole affair in the proper light, then
you would certainly know that this man is not a bad person. You
would also know that his wish to leave his parish is not motivated
by levity and instability but rather by the greatest exigency and
demand of conscience (than which there is nothing greater in any
creature), unless you don’t know in what great tyranny and un-
godliness such parishes are held and must be administered, and
how difficult it is to get one. I admit he had previously obtained
this parish with our help , 7 not knowing what he would get into.
Now, having recognized the matter and understood the danger,
he retreats, and intends to leave. You ought to approve of this by
showing him greatest kindness and praise and commend him for it.
You, however, accuse him of vacillating and condemn him; this
you do with such great violence that you even vow not to help
anyone else in the future. If you think and teach this way at court,
then it would be better if you would be mute unto eternity. What
I always have suspected in regard to this court becomes obvious
now; I also understand now why the court rejected Pfaffenbeck
so completely . 8 But this court covers up the secret evil of revenge
and the ignorance of that charity found in Christ and most highly
praised in all the letters of St. Paul, which is slow to revenge-
even if one is justly provoked to it . 9 Do you perhaps think that it
is not revenge if you don’t inflict any harm [on someone] but with-
draw your brotherly service [from him] so that he cannot overcome
or check evil, which with your help he might avoid? My dear
Spalatin, don’t err! God is not mocked , 10 not even by the court,
however hypocritical the court may be. You wouldn’t want some-
one to do to you what you are considering doing to this man. You

5 Matt. 18:15.

6 See Erasmus, Adagia. Clericus 2, 192, D f.

7 Luther to Spalatin: March 7, 1521. WA, Br 2, 283.

8 Luther had previously intervened on his behalf, without success ( see WA,
Br 2, No. 468; S-J 2, 117 f. Luther's letter is not extant, and the background
of it could not be established.

9 Rom. 2:7; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; I Tim. 6:11.

Gal. 6:7.

383

LETTERS

are sinning against the entire law and against love; I cannot per-
mit you to perish in this sin. Therefore it is certainly brotherly
anxiety that compels me to admonish you. Your boasting is not
good. 11

You reply that rashness and instability have to be punished,
so that there is no occasion for a bad example. Right, but first
one has to see whether it is rashness or rather piety which would
be censured here, in order to avoid any possibility of any evil
example by punishing innocence and piety. In this case it is piety,
however, since he does not dare to take upon himself or administer
the ungodliness of the masses. Now this may be rashness and
should certainly be punished, but in such a way that it is set right
and corrected, and not left uncorrected and the brother deserted
in his misery. If you pursue that matter with such great harshness,
then you will not only deprive the man of a parish, but you will
also put him into the hands of his superiors, which would be the
greatest danger [for him] and extremely harmful. In short you
would have ruined him. For goodness' sake, will you who teach the
gospel nevertheless dare to call this a punishment of rashness? 1
cannot believe this about you.

But be that as it may, you cannot act differently, since this
is the custom of the court and the Sovereign's 12 way of thinking,
I [can] hear [you saying]. But what are you then doing at court
as a man of the gospel? Your task is to press forward on the basis
of the Word to the end that this custom and way of thinking no
longer exist, or at least not for you. That means “you will tell the
ungodly about his sin and so save your life,” as Ezekiel writes in
chapter 3 [ : 19] . You know what strong words you courtiers have
so often used to admonish me about my harshness. But now look,
I ask you, what must one think about you people? Isn't it more
salutary to fight ungodliness, even if it offends many people, than
to flatter men in order to preserve peace and quietness? 13 Since
you are so slow to castigate the thinking [of those] at court, which
is incomparably worse than even the “fickleness” of this man, are
you not then caught as an unjust judge? For I don't believe that

HI Cor. 5:0.

12 Elector Frederick; see pp. 49 f .

13 For similar statements, see pp. 326 f., 373 £E.

384

TO GEORGE SPALATIN, JANUARY 22?, 1522

you would thunder against a lapse on the part of the Sovereign
as you thunder against the “fickleness” of this man. Why do you
deal differently with him than with those [at court]? Its only be-
cause you don’t consider the merits but rather the persons involved.
You therefore either have to receive this man with the same pa-
tience and kindness with which you accept the faults of the men
at court, or know that you have repudiated Christ

What miserable people we are, that we fool ourselves with
our urbane courtesies and pretenses and do not see that secretly
we omit Christian love! We treat the problems of the brethren
in a cold, even ungodly way. Why? Because we act as if they
were the problems of others and not our own. Love, however,
cares for the problems of others as if they were one’s own, as it
is written, “Bear one another’s burdens ”; 14 and again, “Let no one
consider his own interests but the interests of others .” 15 Love re-
proves faults but does not desert [him who falls]. This special
vice of [the men at] this court has often offended me very much:
claiming that they do not harm those who have only given offense
once (and therefore boasting of not being bloodthirsty), they
persistently undermine such poor people by withdrawing their help
from them. It would sometimes be better to suffer at the hands of
the bloodthirsty than at the hands of those who [“only”] withdraw
[their help]. Whoever wishes to praise this may do so; I condemn
it as being diametrically opposed to Christian patience. Be careful,
therefore, that in detaching yourself wisely (as you think) from
other people’s instability, you don’t on the other hand unwisely
(as I think) involve yourself in other people’s cruelty.

May God grant that you accept this [admonition] in a
brotherly and grateful attitude. I wish you would see what a great
and magnificent thin g it is to teach the ungodly and to discuss
the Word of God with them-and how few there are who are doing
this openly and plainly.

I therefore plead with you that if you are able to help this
Kreuz, you would not only not be offended but would also see to
it that the Sovereign does not become even more ungracious to-
ward him. Also, if this is possible, [I ask] that he may exchange

14 Gal. 6:2.
IB Phil. 2:4.

885

LETTERS

his parish for another one where it would not be necessary to
celebrate mass. If you cannot do this [I beg you] at least to treat
this man with gentleness and kindness. For we are brothers and
he has done no evil, but he wants to act in a pious and Christian
way; and in his attempt to do this, we have to help him. If you do
not want to help him, then I have at least fulfilled my obligation
to you and to him by writing this letter, and my conscience will
be clear. See to it that you [not only] teach Christ but also recog-
nize Christ in [this your] brother, and treat [him as such].

Farewell in the Lord; may he give you light and set you on
fire with his knowledge. Amen.

January 22, 1522 Martin Luther

116 1

To Elector Frederick
Wartburg, about February 22, 1522 2

Luther congratulates the Elector on the acquisition of his new
relic. He also announces his imminent return.

On Elector Frederick , see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: W A, Br 2 , 448-449. The following translation,
with minor changes, is by Theodore G. Tappert and is used by
permission from Luther: Letters. LCC 18, 139-140. Published
1955, The Westminster Press.

1 Letters No. 116 through 118 have to be seen against the background of the
disturbances which took place in Wittenberg in December of 1521 and Janu-
ary/February of 1522. Karlstad t’s and Zwilling’s ideas and reforms caused
restlessness among the people of Wittenberg and led finally, due to the
agitation of the “Zwickau prophets,” to disturbances and violence in the city.
Asked by the people of Wittenberg to return (see p. 395), Luther left the
Wartburg and came to Wittenberg to restore order in the city, to fulfil his
pastoral responsibility for his congregation, and to prevent the Word of God
from being distorted by a false understanding. On the origin and develop-
ment of the Wittenberg disturbances, see p. 281, n. 24; pp. 324 f.; p. 364, n.
28; p. 366, n. 6; p. 381, n. 11; pp. 388 ff., 401 f.; Bainton, pp. 203 f.;
Schwiebert, pp. 535 ff.; ARG 6 (1909), 161 ff., 261 ff., 385 ff.; 7 (1910), 185
ff., 233 ff., 353 ff.; 8 (1911), 1 ff.

2 On the dating of this letter, see WA, Br 2, No. 454, Introduction.

386

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, ABOUT FEBRUARY 22, 1522

To my most gracious Lord, Duke Frederick,
elector of Saxony: Personal

Jesus

Grace and joy from God the Father on the acquisition of a new
relicl

I put this greeting in place of my assurances of respect. For
many years Your Grace has been acquiring relics in every land,
but God has now heard Your Graces request and has sent Your
Grace without cost or effort a whole cross, together with nails,
spears, and scourges. I say again: grace and joy from God on
the acquisition of a new relicl 3

Your Grace should not be terrified by it; stretch out your arms
confidently and let the nails go deep. Be glad and thankful, for
thus it must and will be with those who desire God’s Word. Not
only must Annas and Caiaphas rage, 4 but Judas must be among
the apostles and Satan among the children of God. Only be wise
and prudent, and do not judge according to reason or outward
appearances. Do not be downhearted, for things have not yet come
to such a pass as Satan wishes.

Your Grace should have a little confidence in me, fool though
I am, for I know these and other similar tricks of Satan. I do not
fear him [because I know] that this hurts him. Yet all of this is only
a beginning. Let the world cry out and pass its judgments. Let
those fall away who will-even a St. Peter [or persons like] the
apostles. They will come back on the third day when Christ rises
from the dead. This word in II Corinthians 6 [:4, 5] must be ful-
filled in us, “Let us prove ourselves in tumults,” etc. 5

I hope that Your Grace will take this letter in good part. I
am in such haste that my pen has had to gallop, and I have no

3 The Elector was especially concerned with the collection of relics entrusted
to the All Saints’ Chapter at the Wittenberg Castle Church (see p. 46, n. 1;
p. 388, n. 8). He did not hesitate to overcome difficult situations (see pp. 33
f. ) or spend large sums of money ( although he was generally thrifty ) to enlarge
this collection. Luther compares the Wittenberg disturbances to a relic of
Christ’s cross. The Elector had received this relic without having sought it.
How lucky he was to be presented with such a relic!

4 Matt. 26:57; John 18:12-13.

5 This quotation is written in Latin.

387

LETTERS

time for more. God willing, I shall soon be there. But Your Grace
must not assume responsibility in my behalf.

Your Grace's humble servant,
Martin Luther

117

To Elector Frederick
Boma, March 5, 1522

Immediately upon receiving Luthers letter No. 116 , Elector
Frederick sent a special message to his official at Eisenach, who in
turn was to inform Luther of its contents; see WA, Br 2, No. 454,
Document II; S-J 2, 90 ff. In this message the Elector requested
Luther not to come out of hiding, at least not for the time being.
The Elector also asked Luther's counsel regarding the disturbances
at Wittenberg (see p. 386, n. 1). The Electors message reflects his
grave concern about the situation in Wittenberg and the latest
moves of the Imperial government. Duke Georges agitation
against Electoral Saxony ( see p. 381, n. 11) resulted in the issuance
of a mandate by the Imperial government on January 20, 1522, in
Niirnberg, demanding that all innovations concerning religious
practices be suppressed or nullified under threat of punishment.
See Akten und Briefe 1, No. 288.

Luther decided to return to Wittenberg in spite of the Elec-
tors wish that he stay at the Wartburg. This letter, written by
Luther on his way back to Wittenberg, is a reply to the Electors
message to him and an explanation that he is returning to
Wittenberg because he has to obey God rather than any secular
government.

On Elector Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: WA, Br 2, 454-457; the following translation,
with minor changes, is by Theodore G . Tappert and is used by
permission from Luther: Letters. LCC 18, 318-321. Published
1955, The Westminster Press.

388

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, MARCH 5, 1522

To the Most Serene, Noble Sovereign and Lord, Sir Frederick, duke
of Saxony, elector of the Holy Roman Empire, landgrave of
Thuringia, margrave in Meissen, my Most Gracious
Lord and Patron

Jesus

Grace and peace from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus
Christ, and my most humble service.

Most Serene, Noble Elector, Most Gracious Lord: Your Elec-
toral Graces kind letter and opinion reached me Friday evening 1
as I was preparing to depart the next day . 2 I need not say that
I know Your Electoral Grace has the very best of intentions, for
I am as certain of it as a man can be. On the other hand I am
convinced by more than human means of reckoning that I too
have good intentions. But this does not get us anywhere.

I take the liberty of supposing on the basis of Your Electoral
Graces letter that Your Electoral Grace was somewhat offended
by that part of my letter in which I wrote that Your Electoral
Grace should be wise . 3 Yet this impression of mine is canceled
by the confidence I have that Your Electoral Grace knows my heart
better than to suppose that I would sneer at Your Electoral Grace’s
well-known wisdom in such unseemly terms. I hope that it will
always be that I have a thoroughly unaffected love and affection
for Your Electoral Grace above all other sovereigns and rulers.
What I wrote was done out of concern to reassure Your Electoral
Grace, not for my own sake (of that I had no thought at the time)
but for the sake of that untoward movement introduced by our
friends in Wittenberg to the great detriment of the gospel . 4 I
feared that Your Electoral Grace would suffer great inconvenience
from it. Moreover, I myself was so overwhelmed by the calamity
that had I not been certain that we have the pure gospel, I would
have despaired of [our] cause. Whatever I have suffered hitherto

1 February 28.

2 March 1. The “letter and opinion” is a reference to the instruction men-
tioned in the Introduction.

8 See p. 387; WA, Br 2, No. 454, Document II.

4 The Wittenberg disturbances; see p. 386, n. 1.

389

LETTERS

for this cause has been nothing compared with this. I should will-
ingly have averted the trouble at the cost of my life if that had
been possible. We can answer neither to God nor to the world
for what has been done. And yet it is blamed on me and, what is
even worse, on the gospel. This pains me deeply.

Accordingly, Most Gracious Lord, my letter concerned only
the action of these men , 5 not my own, in order that Your Electoral
Grace should not pay attention to the ideas of the devil now un-
folding in this drama [at Wittenberg]. Although such admonition
may have been unnecessary for Your Electoral Grace, yet it was
necessary for me to write it

As for myself, Most Gracious Lord, I answer this: Your Elec-
toral Grace knows (or, if you do not, I now inform you of the
fact) that I have received the gospel not from men but from
heaven only, through our Lord Jesus Christ , 6 so that I might well
be able to boast and call myself a minister and evangelist, as I
shall do in the future. I offered to appear for hearings and trial 7 8
not because I had doubts about [my mission] but out of excessive
humility, in order to persuade others. But since I now see that my
excessive humility abases the gospel, and that if I yield an inch the
devil will take a mile, I am compelled by my conscience to act
otherwise. I have served Your Electoral Grace well enough by
staying in hiding for this year to please Your Electoral Grace.
The devil knows very well that I did not hide from cowardice, for
he saw my heart when I entered Worms. Had I then known that
as many devils were lying in wait for me as there were tiles on
the roofs, I should nevertheless have leaped into their midst with
joy.®

Now Duke George is still far from being the equal of one
devil . 9 Since the Father of infinite mercies 10 has by the gospel
made us daring lords [with power] over all devils and over death
and has given us such an abundance of confidence that we may

5 The agitators in Wittenberg: Karlstadt, Zwilling, and the “Zwickau prophets”;
see p. 386, n. 1.

«G£d. 1:11-12.

7 See pp. 249 f.

8 See p. 198.

9 Duke George of Saxony; see p. 381, n. 11.

wn Cor. 1:3.

590

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, MARCH 5, 1522

venture to call him our dearest Father , 11 Your Electoral Grace
can see for yourself that it would be a great insult to such a
Father not to trust him enough to take the measure of Duke
George s wrath.

I know myself well enough to say that if the condition that
exists in Wittenberg existed in Leipzig , 12 I would go to Leipzig
even if (Your Electoral Grace will excuse my foolish words) it
rained Duke Georges for nine days and every duke were nine
times as furious as this one. He takes my Lord Christ to be a
man of straw. My Lord and I can suffer that for a while.

I shall not conceal from Your Electoral Grace that I have
more than once prayed and wept for Duke George, that God
might enlighten him. I shall pray and weep once more and then
cease forever. I beg Your Electoral Grace also to help in praying
and to have others pray that the judgment which (O Lord God!)
moves in on him without let-up might be averted. I would slay
Duke George with a single word 13 if I knew that this would
settle the matter . 14

I have written this so Your Electoral Grace might know that
I am going to Wittenberg under a far higher protection than the
Electors. I have no intention of asking Your Electoral Grace for
protection. Indeed I think I shall protect Your Electoral Grace
more than you are able to protect me. And if I thought that Your
Electoral Grace could and would protect me, I should not go.
The sword ought not and cannot help a matter of this kind. God
alone must do it— and without the solicitude and co-operation of
men. Consequently he who believes the most can protect the
most. And since I have the impression that Your Electoral Grace
is still quite weak in faith, I can by no means regard Your Elec-
toral Grace as the man to protect and save me.

Since Your Electoral Grace wishes to know what to do in this
matter and thinks that you have done too little, I humbly answer
that Your Electoral Grace has already done far too much and
should do nothing at all. God will not and cannot tolerate your

n Rom. 8:15-16; Matt. 6:9.

12 Leipzig was located in the domain of Duke George; see p. 63, n. 24.
is Of prayer.

i4 1.e., avert the judgment threatening the Duke or solve all problems or
bring the Duke to true faith or disarm the devil.

391

LETTERS

worrying and bustling, or mine. He wishes the matter to be left
[in his hands] and no one else’s. May Your Electoral Grace act
accordingly. If Your Electoral Grace believes, then Your Elec-
toral Grace will be safe and have peace. If Your Electoral Grace
does not believe, I at least do believe and must leave Your
Electoral Grace s unbelief to its own torturing anxiety, such as all
unbelievers have to suffer.

Inasmuch as I do not intend to obey Your Electoral Grace,
Your Electoral Grace is excused before God if I am captured or
put to death . 15 Before men Your Electoral Grace should act as
an elector, obedient to the authorities and allowing His Imperial
Majesty 16 to rule in your cities and lands over both life and
property, as is his right according to the Imperial constitution;
Your Electoral Grace should by no means offer any resistance or
request such resistance or any obstruction on the part of others
in case [His Imperial Majesty] wants to capture me or put me
to death. For no one should overthrow or resist authority save
him who ordained it; otherwise it is rebellion and an action
against God. But I hope they will have the good sense to recog-
nize that Your Electoral Grace occupies too lofty a position [to be
expected] to become my executioner. If the representatives [of the
Imperial government] themselves or their deputies come to capture
me and Your Electoral Grace admits them and upholds their Elec-
toral safe-conduct, then Your Electoral Grace will have done
enough in the way of obedience. They can ask no more of Your
Electoral Grace than that you do not hold Luther back. [I can
be taken prisoner] without causing Your Electoral Grace trouble,
work, or danger. For Christ has not taught me to be a Christian
at another's expense. If they are so unreasonable as to command
Your Electoral Grace to lay hands on me, I shall at once tell Your
Electoral Grace what to do. [In any case] I shall see to it that
Your Electoral Grace suffers no harm and danger in body, estate,
or soul on my account, whether Your Electoral Grace believes
this or not.

Herewith I commend Your Electoral Grace to the grace of
God. If necessary we shall speak further of the matter very soon.

15 On account of the Edict of Worms; see p. 210.

16 Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

892

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, MARCH 7 OR 8, 1522

I have written this letter in haste so that Your Electoral Grace
may not be disturbed at hearing of my arrival [in Wittenberg],
for if I would be a true Christian I must be everyone's consoler
and do no harm to anyone. It is Someone other than Duke George
whom I have to consider. He knows me rather well, and I have
some real knowledge of Him too. If Your Electoral Grace believed,
you would see the glory of God. But because you do not believe,
you have not yet seen. Love and praise to God forever. Amen.

Written at Borna , [in the house of] the official escort, 11 March
5, 1522

Your Electoral Grace's humble servant,
Martin Luther

118

To Elector Frederick
Wittenberg, March 7 or 8, 1 1522

Luther returned from the Wartburg excommunicated by the
church and under the ban of the Imperial government. This could
have had important consequences, had the Imperial government
insisted that the Edict of Worms ( see p. 210) be enforced, or
had it had the military power to execute it even against the Elec-
tors will. Elector Frederick apparently was willing and courageous
enough to deal with this problem. Nevertheless he wanted to be
careful so that he (still confessing the faith of the Roman church )

17 Michael von der Strassen of Dresden; see ARG 8 (1911), 36 f.; WA,
Br 2, 457, n. 40. He had studied in Wittenberg in 1503/04 and was
Gleitsmann at Borna from 1511 on. In this position he supervised the col-
lection of taxes at Borna ( center of an administrative district south of Leipzig
in Electoral Saxony) and was the Elector’s official representative there; he
also functioned as an escort for the Elector, government officials, and official
guests. Because the court valued him for his thriftiness and ability to manage

E ublic funds, he was often entrusted with buying supplies for the Electoral
ousehold. He died in 1531. In spite of the fact that he was well versed
in financial matters, he did not acquire private wealth. After his death
Luther apparently tried several times to obtain scholarships for one of his sons.
1 On the dating of this letter, see p. 398, n. 17.

893

LETTERS

did not publicly permit a heretic and outlaw to live in his territory.
The Elector apparently felt that there was a great difference be-
tween tolerating Luther and his work (and protecting him from
unfair treatment), and giving Luther explicit permission to return
to public life in the Electoral domain.

Upon receiving Luther’s letter (pp. 388 ff.), the Elector commis-
sioned Jerome Schurf of Wittenberg (see p. 219, n. 2) to meet
with Luther at once. Schurf was to request a letter from Luther
“in which he [Luther] sets forth the reasons and motivations for
his return to Wittenberg and the fact that this was without our
permission; he is also to state his willingness to exercise some self-
restraint and to say that he does not wish to give anyone any
trouble ; and the letter is to be formulated so that we can forward
it to some of our men [i.e., apparently the Electoral Saxon delega-
tion to the Imperial government as a possible answer to the Janu-
ary 20 mandate; see p. 388], in order to maintain our honor.” See
WA, Br 2, No. 455, Document 11; S-J 2, 96 f. Jerome Schurf ap-
parently met with Luther on March 8 (see WA, Br 2, No. 456,
Introduction), and this letter. No. 118, is the result of this meeting.

On Elector Frederick, see pp. 49 f.

Text in German: WA, Br 2, 459-462.

Jesus

Grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
Amen; and my humble service.

Most Serene, Noble Sovereign and Most Gracious Lord: I have
very carefully considered that it truly would be a burden for Your
Electoral Grace if I would return to Wittenberg again without
Your Electoral Grace’s wish and permission, particularly since it
!ww>ms that this would cause great danger for Your Electoral Grace,
the whole country, and all the people, but especially for myself,
banned and condemned by papal and Imperial law as I am, and
expecting death at any moment.

What should I do? There is urgent reason for my return and
God compels and calls me. Therefore it has to be this way and
will be so; so let it be in the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord of life
and death.

394

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, MARCH 7 OR 8, 1522

In order that Your Electoral Grace is not ignorant, however,
regarding the reasons for my return, I will explain to Your Electoral
Grace those [which I consider most important]. To begin with,
I am returning not out of contempt for the authority of the Im-
perial Majesty 2 or of Your Electoral Grace or of any other govern-
ment. Human authority is not always to be obeyed, namely, when
it undertakes something against the commandments of God ; 3 yet
it should never be despised but always honored. Christ did not
justify Pilate's verdict; but he did not depose him or the emperor,
nor did he show any contempt for him . 4

The first reason [for my return]: I am called by the whole
congregation at Wittenberg in a letter filled with urgent begging
and pleading . 5 Since no one can deny that the [present] commo-
tion 6 has its origin in me, and since I must confess that I am a
humble servant of the congregation to which God has sent me,
I had no way of refusing [this call] without rejecting Christian
love, trust, and obedience. Many may consider this commotion
something demonic, many may criticize and condemn it; no doubt
they don't consider this to be a reason for my return and instead
might consider it only just that Wittenberg and the work that was
begun there should be left to perish. This does not excuse me,
however, because God will not judge me according to the belief
or disbelief of others, be they many or few, but according to my
own conscience. I know that what I have to say and what I have
begun does not originate in me but in God; no death or persecution
will teach me differently. It seems to me that one has to leave
it this way.

The second reason [for my return] : on account of my absence
Satan has intruded into my fold at Wittenberg . 7 The whole world
shouts it abroad— and it certainly is true— that Satan has injured

2 Emperor Charles V; see pp. 175 f.

3 Acts 5:29-30.

4 John 19:11.

5 The letter is not extant. See p. 366, n. 6; p. 371; WA, Br 2, 462, n. 4.

6 1.e., the reformation of the church, especially the disturbances which it
caused in Wittenberg.

7 The Wittenberg disturbances; see p. 386, n. 1; see also p. 401. As early as
June, 1521, Luther worried about the possibility that during his absence
"wolves” might enter his sheepfold; see p. 248.

395

LETTERS

some [sheep] which I cannot heal with any writing. I have to deal
with them personally via mouth and ear. My conscience will no
longer allow me to yield or procrastinate. Therefore I have to dis-
regard not only Your Electoral Graces pleasure or displeasure but
even the whole worlds wrath or good will. [The congregation at
Wittenberg is,] after all, my fold, entrusted to me by God; they
are my children in Christ. There has been no time for doubting
whether I should or should not return. I owe it to them to lay
down my life for them, as Christ requires, John 10 [:11], and by
Gods grace I will do that willingly and joyfully. Had I been
able to help things by writing letters, as I did until now, so that it
would not have been necessary to be called back, why should I
not willingly consent to stay away from Wittenberg even for good,
since it is also my duty to die for my neighbor s sake?

The third reason [for my return]: I am rather afraid (and I
worry that unfortunately I may be only too right) that there will
be a real rebellion in the German territories, by which God will
punish the German nation. For we see that this gospel 8 is excel-
lently received by the common people; but they receive it in a
fleshly sense; that is, they know that it is true but do not want to
use it correctly. 9 Those who should calm such rebellion only
aid it. 10 They attempt to put out the light by force, not realizing
that they are only embittering the hearts of men by this and stimu-
lating them to revolt. They behave as if they wanted themselves,
or at least their children, destroyed. No doubt God sends this as a
punishment.

The spiritual tyranny has been weakened, and this was the
only purpose of my writings. Now I see that God will go further
and may deal [with us] as he dealt with Jerusalem and its two
authorities. 11 I recently learned that not only spiritual but also

8 1.e., the way the reformers preach it.

» See pp. 214, 233; p. 351, n. 9.

10 Perhaps a reference to the agitators of the Wittenberg disturbances ( see
p. 386, n. 1 ) or to the opponents of the Reformation; see also pp. 224 f .

11 I.e., the chief priest and the king. Thinking apparently of II Kings 25,
Luther draws a parallel between the capture of the royal family and the
temple officials which climaxed the destruction of the Judean commonwealth,
and the fate to which he is afraid secular and ecclesiastical authorities of his
own time may be exposed.

396

TO ELECTOR FREDERICK, MARCH 7 OR 8, 1522

worldly authority must yield to the gospel, be it voluntarily or not,
as is clearly indicated in all the stories of the Bible. Now God has
commanded, through Ezekiel, that we set ourselves before him as a
wall of protection for the people . 12 Therefore I— and my friends—
have considered it necessary to act upon this, to see whether we
might turn away or defer Gods judgment. Even if I could not
accomplish anything in this affair, and even if I seem ridiculous
to my enemies when they hear of it, I have to do what I see and
know I must do.

Your Electoral Grace should know and rely with security on
the following: something absolutely different was decided in heaven
than at Niimberg . 13 Unfortunately you will see that they who
think they now are gourmandizing the gospel have 14 not yet even
begun to eat.

There are certainly more reasons [for my return]; I do not
yet consider them urgent enough, however, to point them out or
think about them thoroughly . 15 One reason is more than suf-
ficient, namely, the [cause of the] gospel is in need, and therefore
I could not take human matters into consideration.

With this I beg Your Electoral Grace to be gracious to me and
not to hold against me my present stay in Your Electoral Grace’s
city; I know that this stay is without Your Electoral Grace’s knowl-
edge or consent. Your Electoral Grace is lord only of earthly
goods and bodies, but Christ is also lord of souls. To these he
has sent me and for this [purpose] he has raised me up. I can-
not abandon them. I trust my Lord Christ is stronger than our
enemies and certainly can protect me from them if it is his will. If
he does not wish to do this, then his blessed will be done. I cer-

12 Ezek. 13:5; 22:30.

18 A reference to the Imperial mandate issued on January 20 at Niimberg; see
p. 388.

14 From here to the end of the sentence reads literally, “have not yet said the
Benedicite [i.e., grace].” The subject of this last sentence is unclear; it has
to be either the Elector or the enemies who “will see.” Depending on the
interpretation of the word leider, i.e., “unfortunately,” and its position in
the sentence, this sentence may also be translated: “They [i.e., the enemies]
will see to their sorrow that those who think . . . .” Although in this inter-
pretation the sense requires enemies to be the subject, structurally the original
text leaves the subject ambiguous.

15 It is not clear of what additional reasons Luther was thinking.

397

tainly know, however, that I shall not suffer danger or harm from
Your Electoral Grace . 16

I commend Your Electoral Grace to Gods mercy.

Wittenberg, March 8, 1522 17

Your Electoral Grace’s dedicated servant,

Martin Luther

Postscript

Should Your Electoral Grace be dissatisfied with the form of
this letter , 18 then I humbly ask that Your Electoral Grace have
one drafted which will be satisfactory to you, and have it for-
warded to me . 19 I am not afraid of having my last letter to Your

16 The original text could perhaps also support the following translation of
this sentence: “But I certainly know that Your Electoral Grace will not be
exposed to any danger or harm on account of me.”

17 Luther wrote: “Freitag ante Invocavit ,1522" i.e., “Friday before Invocavit
[i.e., the first Sunday in Lent, named after the first word of the Introit in
Latin], 1522.” According to the WA, Br editor this was March 7. The WA,
Br editor has convincingly shown, however, that Luther predated this letter
to pretend that he wrote it immediately upon his return to Wittenberg on
March 7; it also seems that the meeting with Schurf (see p. 394) did not
take place before March 8, so that one is justified in assuming March 8 as
the date on which this letter was actually written. Together with Schurf s
official report, it was forwarded to the Elector by Schurf on March 9; see
WA, Br 2, No. 456, Introduction, and Document II.

18 On the Elector's request for this letter, see p. 394.

19 On March 11 Elector Frederick answered Schurf s official communication
of March 9 (see note 17) and enclosed a draft of a letter, as Luther had
suggested. This draft was prepared by Spalatin. Although Luther did not
like the way Spalatin had altered his letter (pp. 394 ff.), he yielded and
copied and signed it on March 12. A comparison of Luther's original version
(letter No. 118) with the more diplomatically phrased final version (the
March 12 letter) shows definite differences in style and argument, though
the content is the same. Were the sample draft by Spalatin also available,
one could see whether or not Luther followed it verbatim. It may be
assumed, however, that Luther did so, in view of his unhappiness with the
March 12 letter; he expressed his criticism of Spalatin's draft and the final
(March 12) version of letter No. 118 in his March 13 letter to Spalatin,
which is the covering letter for the final version. Luther gave Schurf the
March 12 letter to the Elector, together with the March 13 covering letter to
Spalatin. On March 15, in the early morning, Schurf forwarded both docu-
ments ( to which he added his own report; see WA, Br 2, No. 458, Document
II) to the Electoral Saxon court in Lochau, where they arrived late in the
afternoon. Elector Frederick had Luther's March 12 letter copied at once,
and had the copy forwarded via Duke John (see p. 269, n. 8) to the
Electoral Saxon delegation at the Council of Regency in Niimberg (see p.
381, n. 11; p. 394). On March 16 the Elector issued a special instruction
to Hans von der Planitz, the Electoral Saxon ambassador to the Council of

398

TO NICHOLAS HAUSMANN, MARCH 17, 1522

Electoral Grace 20 get out into the public. From now on I do
not want to undertake anything of which I would be ashamed
should others see me doing it during the day. I was not afraid of
rebellion; 21 thus far I have taken it quite lightly, thinking it was
directed only against the clergy. Now I am worried, however, that
it might also surge against the government and, like an epidemic,
involve the clergy [in its violent rush]. Yet this will not and
should not happen until the gospel is persecuted and put down,
as has always been the case in the past.

119

To Nicholas Hausmann
Wittenberg, March 17, 1522

Luther returned from the Wartburg to restore peace to Witten-
berg and prevent the Word of God from being distorted. In this
letter he comments on the “Zwickau prophets * and gives a theo-
logical evaluation of the radical changes brought forth by the Wit-
tenberg disturbances; see p. 386, n. 1. He points out principles
which should underlie any change in religious practices.

'Nicholas Hausmann of Freiberg/ Saxony (147 8? -1538) was a
close friend of Luther, although he is one of the lesser known men
of the Reformation . A pastor in Zwickau since 1521, he was con-
fronted with great difficulties there. First he had to face the en-
thusiasts (see p. 364, n. 28) and later he had to deal with the
Zwickau city council, which was attempting to meddle in the af-
fairs of the church. The controversy between Hausmann and the
city council is important in understanding the relationship of the
Reformation churches to secular power. In these difficulties Luther

Regency; the Elector requested that von der Planitz show Luther's March
12 letter to everyone who might want to cause trouble to Electoral Saxony
because of Luther's return to Wittenberg. On March 21 von der Planitz
received a copy of Luther's March 12 letter, and the next day he reported
to the Elector that he had turned over the copy to the Council of Regency.
See WA, Br 2, 473.

20 See pp. 388 ff.

21 See pp. 98, 152, 192, 223, 233, 245, 281, 307.

399

was Hausmanns faithful friend , and on Hausmanns behalf he
wrote some of his sharpest letters. 1 Recommended by Luther,
Hausmann was called in 1532 to be court chaplain to the dukes of
Anhalt in Dessau , a position he held until 1538, when he accepted
a call to his home town of Freiberg. There he died of a stroke
suffered while preaching his installation sermon . His primary in-
terest was the development of an order or constitution for the
congregations and a form of worship; both were to reflect the un-
derstanding of the gospel the Reformation had brought forth. Thus
Hausmann was involved in the liturgical changes Luther worked
out, and was primarily responsible for the visitations conducted in
Electoral Saxony (and later in other territories), which led to the
organization of the territorial church.

Text in Latin: WA, Br 2, 474-475.

To the faithful evangelist of the congregation in Zwickau,

Mr. Nicholas Hausmann, my dearest brother in Christ

Jesus

Greetings. My Nicholas, [my friend] in Christ: Although I am in
the midst of such great commotion and am occupied with various
tasks [because of it], 2 yet I could not skip writing to you, espe-

1 According to K. Aland (ed. ), Martin Luther: Die Brief e (“ Luther Deutsch”
Vol. X [Stuttgart: E. Klotz Verlag, 1959]), p. 412.

2 The Wittenberg disturbances; see p. 386, n. 1. From March 9 to 16 Luther
preached his famous eight lnvocavit Sermons; see WA 10 m , 1 ff.; LW 51,
70 ff. Through these sermons he restored peace to the minds of the people
and order in the city. The impression these sermons made on the public
is reflected in a letter of one of the Wittenberg students, who listened to
them: “On March 6 Martin Luther returned to Wittenberg in equestrian habit,
accompanied by several horsemen. He came to settle the trouble stirred up
by the extremely violent sermons of Karlstadt and Zwilling. For they had
no regard for weak consciences, whom Luther, no less than Paul, would feed
on milk until they grew strong. He preaches daily on the Ten Commandments.
As far as one can tell from his face the man is kind, gentle, and cheerful.
His voice is sweet and sonorous, so that I wonder at the sweet speaking of
the man. Whatever he does, teaches, and says is most pious, even though his
impious enemies say the opposite. Everyone, even though not Saxon, who
hears him once, desires to hear him again and again, such tenacious hooks
does he fix in the minds of his auditors. In short there is nothing lacking
in that man which makes for the most perfect Christian piety, even though
all mortals and the gates of hell may say the contrary.” S-J 2, 115.

400

TO NICHOLAS HAUSMANN, MARCH 17, 1522

cially since the occasion demanded it, and this friend, the carrier
of the letter, requested it. I hope you are strong in faith and are
growing daily in the knowledge of Christ . 8 The "prophets ” 4 who
came from your [town] are striving for peculiar things; they are
pregnant with monstrosities I do not like. If these should be bom,
they will cause no small damage. Their spirit is extremely deceit-
ful and specious. The Lord be with us. Amen.

Satan attempted to do so much damage here in my fold that
it was hard to oppose him without causing offense to both sides.
By all means see to it that you don’t permit any innovations, either
on the basis of a common resolution 5 or by force. Only with the
Word are those things to be fought which our people tried to
accomplish by force and violence; with the Word they are to
be overthrown, with the Word they are to be destroyed! It is Satan
who has driven them to their actions.

I condemn the idea that masses are considered sacrifices or
good works ; 6 but I do not want to lay hands on the unwilling or
unbelieving, or curb them by force. I condemn only with the
Word; he who believes, let him believe and follow— he who
does not believe, let him disbelieve and be dismissed. No one should
be forced to faith and to what belongs to faith, but he should be
drawn by the Word so that, willingly believing, he may come of his
own accord.

I condemn religious symbols , 7 but with the Word; they should
not be burned, but trust should not be put in them as was done
before and is still done today. They would fall by themselves if
people were taught and knew that before God symbols are nothing.

s Col. 1:10.

4 See p. 364, n. 28.

5 I.e., a resolution of the people. On the other hand, however, Luther saw the
possibility that the resolution of the community could abolish old customs, as
well as abuses in the field of religion; see W A, Br 2, 491. As a result,
in the passage here the emphasis has to be on the "force,” i.e., on the
tumultuous circumstances under which such common resolutions were brought
forth.

6 See pp. 324 f.

7 Literally: "images.” References to the iconoclasm which had taken place in
Wittenberg in January, 1522, under the leadership of Karlstadt and the
"Zwickau prophets,” who thought religious symbols were contrary to God’s
commandment in Exod. 20:4-5.

401

LETTERS

Likewise I condemn the pope’s laws on confession , 8 com-
munion , 9 prayer, and fasting— but I condemn with the Word, so
that I may liberate consciences from these laws. When the con-
sciences have been freed, then of course people can use all these
things 10 for the sake of the weak who are still entangled in them;
when the weak have become firm, then these things may be dis-
continued. This way love will rule with regard to these external
works and regulations . 11

Now nothing is more disgusting to me than our mob of people
here who have abandoned Word, faith, and love and can only
boast that they are Christians because before the very eyes of the
weak they can eat meat, eggs, and milk , 12 receive the Lord’s Supper
in “both kinds ,” 18 and neither fast nor pray.

I plead that you too take up this [my] way of teaching. Every-
thing has to be exposed to the Word, but hearts must be driven
slowly , 14 like Jacob’s flock , 15 so that first they take up the Word
of God voluntarily, and when they have finally become strong, do
everything. Perhaps it is unnecessary to tell this to you because
you know this [already]; but it was the solicitude of love that
prompted it.

Farewell in Christ, and support the [cause of the] gospel with
your prayers.

Wittenberg , March 17, 1522

Yours,

Martin Luther

8 See p. 246, n. 10.

9 See pp. 324 f.

10 I.e., religious symbols.

11 1 Corinthians 8; Rom. 13:8-9; 14, 15. For Luthers thoughts on the subject
outlined in the last paragraph, see the Invocavit Sermons (see note 2) and
his work The Freedom of a Christian. WA 7, 20 ff., 49 ff.; LW 31, 343 ff.
12 I.e., on days of fast,
is See pp. 143 f., 324 f.

14 In tne autograph the word is illegible; the translation is based on the
conjecture and interpretation made by the WA, Br editor on the basis of the
context.

15 Gen. 33:13.

402

INDEXES

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

[References to biographical sketches are in boldface type.]

Abel, 25
Abraham, 260 f .

Absolution (sacrament of penance),

43, 85 n. 15 (see also Keys of
the church; Penance)

Abuses of the clergy (see Bishop;
Church, papal, tyranny of; Lu-
ther, unrest; Nationalism)

Adolf of Anhalt (see Merseburg,
bishop of)

Adrian, Matthew, 132, 154 n. 1, 160,
161, 162

Adrian VI, pope, 155 n. 5
Agricola, Else, 221 n. 5
Agricola, John, 113 n. 10, 220, 236 n.
56

Albert the Great, St., 30 n. 18, 96 n. 8
Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz, 44 f.,
56 n. 3, 70, 109 n. 11, 143 n. 7,
150, 152 n. 5, 154 n. 1, 161 n. 4,
163 n. 1, 205 n. 6, 213, 214 n. 5,
234, 305 nn. 2, 4, 316 n. 10, 320,
339, 344 ff., 349, 353 f., 365, 373
ff., 381

atrocious wolf, 326
harlots of, 377
idol at Mainz, 316
son of perdition, 326
tyrant of Mainz, 350 f.

Albrecht of Mansfeld, 145 n. 5, 238,
337 n. 1

Albrecht II, emperor, 189 n. 10
Aleander, Jerome, 176, 216 n. 7, 220
n. 12, 223 n. 3, 255 n. 18, 272 n.
1

Allstedt, 188

Altenburg, 8, 96, 100, 103 n. 2, 104
n. 4, 108, 109 n. 12, 127, 128,
129 n. 8, 161 n. 1, 170, 222,
264 n. 2

Altenstein Castle, 227
Altomunster, 230 n. 14
Alveld, Augustine, 164 n. 9, 183 n. 5,
194

Alvesleben, Busse de, 161 n. 4
Ambrose, St., 24, 54
Amerbach, John, 24 n. 3
Amsdorf, Nicholas, 113 n. 10, 202,
213, 218, 232, 234, 235, 257,
262, 264, 267 n. 26, 269, 310,
352, 360, 382
Amtmann, 33 n. 2

Anfechtung (see Luther, Anfechtung)
Angels, 58, 207
Anglican theology, 247 n. 13
Anhalt, court of, 400
Animate, 58

Anne of Hesse, 272 n. 3
Anne of Hungary, 217 n. 17
Anshelm, T., printer, 57 n. 7, 123 n.
6, 155

Antichrist, 104 n. 7, 114, 137, 230 n.
12, 261, 317, 319, 321 (see also
Latter times)

Antinomian controversy, 220
Antonians, Hospital Brothers of St
Anthony, 180, 327 n. 10
Antwerp, 233 n. 34, 236 n. 62
Apollo, 38 n. 10

Aquinas, St. Thomas, 30 n. 18, 73 n.

3, 85, 96 n. 8
Aquinas, works:

Commentaries on Aristotle’s Works ,
95, 107, 112

Summa Theologica, 156 n. 3, 157 n.
8, 362 n. 16
Aragon, 155 n. 5
Archytas, 59 n. 16
Aristaeus, 38

Aristarch of Samothrace, 26

408

LETTERS

Aristotle, 25, 37 f., 42 n. 7, 58 n. 12,
59, 59 n. 16, 95
Aristotle, works:

Analytika ystera, 95
Categories, 37 n. 4, 57 n. 10
Historia animalium, 166 n. 4
Metaphysics, 112
Nicomachean Ethics, 25, 82
On Physics, 38, 95, 107, 112
On the Soul, 112
Peri hermeneias, 95
Arius, 105, 178 n. 6
Amoldi, Bartholomew, 30 n. 18, 37
n. 2, 38, 62, 139, 151
Ass, barefooted (see Alveld,

Augustine)

Athanasius, 105, 178

Augsburg, 36 n. 16, 39 n. 4, 83, 83 n.

12, 87, 88 n. 3, 90 n. 4, 92, 94 n.
4, 99 n. 14, 105 n. 9, 124, 140,
142 n. 2, 170, 191, 205 n. 8,
230 n. 14, 249, 363 n. 26

Augsburg Confession (1530), 77 n. 3,
275 n. 3

Augsburg, Diet of (1518), 70, 70 n. 1,
72, 73, 75 n. 10, 77 n. 1, 82 n.

10, 84 n. 1, 91 n. 13, 92 n. 18,
93 n. 1, 131 n. 6, 246 n. 5, 249

Augsburg, Diet of (1530), 77 n. 3,
80 n. 13, 99 n. 14, 247 n. 13,
275 n. 3

Augustine, St., 5, 6 n. 3, 24 ff., 28 n.
3, 40, 42, 52 f., 54, 59 n. 19,
79 n. 12, 266, 362 n. 16
Augustine, works:

Anti-Peligian Writings, 24, 54
City of God, 207 n. 15
Confessions, 331 n. 9
Enchiridion, 207
Epistolae, 370 n. 46
On Genesis, 370 n. 46
On the Psalms, 370 n. 46
On the Spirit and the Letter, 25 n.

13, 54, 150 n. 8

Augustinian Canons, Regular, 160 n. 7
Augustinian Eremites, 3, 5, 6 n. 3, 7,

11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 27, 28, 28
n. 6, 29 n. 13, 30, 31, 31 n. 24,
33 f., 36, 39, 39 nn. 3, 4, 41, 53,
60 if., 64 n. 1, 108, 124, 125 n.
9, 135, 149, 164 n. 4, 169, 170,
171 n. 7, 233 n. 34, 236 n. 62,
272, 324, 356, 356 n. 1, 357 ff.,
358 n. 4, 364 n. 28

Rule of, 20 n. 3, 22, 39, 61 n. 6,
227 n. 32

Aurifaber (see During, Christian)
Authority

of the government, 178, 211 n. 3,
258 ff.

of parents, 331 ff.

Babylon, 109

Bacharach, Werner of (see Einhom,
Werner)

Bachelor in Biblical Studies (see
Cursor Bibliae)

Baptism, 280, 367 ff., 369 n. 38, 371,
372

Baptista Mantuanus, 12 n. 4
Barbara of Cilly, 190
Bartholomew, apostle, 17
Basel, 18 n. 7, 24 n. 3, 110, 115 n.

18, 230 n. 14, 305 n. 2, 318
Basel, Council of (1437), 186 n. 1
Basel University, 79 n. 12, 132 n. 1,
194 n. 16, 219 n. 2, 305 n. 4
Bathod, Luke, 322

Bavaria, Bavarians, 32 n. 29, 124, 166
Beckmann, Otto, 43
Beda, Natalis, 289 n. 37
Bedier, Noel (see Beda, Natalis)

Beier, Leonard, 39 n. 4, 60, 90 n. 4
Benedictines, 64 n. 1, 163 n. 1, 225 n.
18

Ben-hadad of Damascus (see Joachim

Ber, Louis, 305 n. 4
Berka, 227

Berlepsch, Hans von, 214 n. 5, 227 n.
31, 255, 269, 276, 290 n. 1, 294,
307 n. 16, 313 n. 5 (see also
Wartburg)

Berlin, 160
Bern, 322 n. 42
Bernard of Clairvaux, St., 298
Bemhardi, Bartholomew, 94 n. 4, 95
n. 1, 115 n. 21, 142 n. 2, 148,
231, 235, 278, 291 n. 12, 342 n.
20, 378

Bemhardi, John, 164 n. 8
Beroald, Philip, the Elder, 112
Bethel, John, of Spangenberg, 29, 31
n. 13
Bible

commentaries, 26 nn. 14, 15, 54 n.
6 (see also Augustine, works; Lu-
ther, hermeneutics, works)

404

INDEX

German translation by Luther, 201,
303 n. 44, 320 n. 28, 352 nn. 16,
17, 355 n. 20, 359, 363, 372
German translations prior to Luther,
352, 352 n. 16, 356, 363 n. 26,
381

lecturer (see Cursor Bibliae)
polyglot, 223 n. 7
Vulgate, 363

Biel, Gabriel, 6 n. 2, 59 n. 19, 65 n. 3,
156 n. 3, 313 n. 3

Birth, divine, 366 (see also Mysticism)
Bishop, office and responsibility of, 46
£, 100, 218, 223 n. 7, 235, 286,
303 n. 44, 308 f., 336, 341, 354
f., 376 (see also Church, papal,
tyranny of; Christ and his gos-
pel; Luther, doctorate, laity, of-
fice, preaching, priest; Priest-
hood; Word of God)

Boethius, 57 n. 10, 58 n. 12, 59 n. 16
Bohemia, 137, 143, 145, 149, 153 n.
15, 189 n. 10, 272 (see also Huss;
Hussite)

Bologna University, 73 n. 3, 112 n. 5,
318

Bonae literae (see Humanism)
Boniface VIII, pope, 186 n. J
Boma, 388, 393 n. 17
Brandenburg

bishop of (see Jerome Sculteus)
court of, 220
elector of (see Joachim I)
margrave of (see Albrecht, arch-
bishop of Mainz; Joachim I)
ruling family of, 339
Braun, John, 3
Bremen, 233 n. 34, 236 n. 62
Breslau, 143 n. 5
Bressen, Christopher, 115
Breviary , 28 n. 9
Britain, 33 n. 6
Brunfels, Otto, 322 n. 42
Brunner, Jerome, 150 n. 11
Bucer, Martin, 247 n. 13, 275 n. 3,
305 n. 2

Bugenhagen, John, 303 n. 44
Burchard, Peter, 168 n. 2
Burgkundstadt, 123
Burgundy, duke of ( see Charles V )
Busch, John, 23

Cabala, 57

"Caesar Augustus,” 203

Caesar, John, 135 n. 3
Cajetan, Thomas, cardinal, 73, 73 n.
3, 81 n. 4, 82 n. 10, 84 ff., 87, 90,
90 nn. 2, 4, 91, 91 n. 13, 92, 94,
94 nn. 4, 5, 108 n. 4, 124, 249,
291 n. 10

Calendas Graecas, 318 n. 4
Calvinism, 77 n. 3 (see also Reforma-
tion, Reformed branch of)
Cambridge University, 247 n. 13
Canon Law, 47, 84 f., 105, 114, 140
n. 7, 186, 186 n. 1, 246 n. 6, 266
n. 17, 275 f., 308 n. 29, 318
Canterbury, archbishop of (see War-
ham, William)

Capito, Wolfgang Fabricius, 118, 230
n. 14, 305 n. 2, 305 n. 4, 316 n.
10, 326 n. 1, 343 n. 28, 344 ff.,
365, 372, 381
Capnio (see Reuchlin)

Cardinals and prelates, 10, 83, 104
Carletti di Chivasso, Angelo, 187 n. 3
Carmelites, 88, 92

Cartagena, bishops of, 67 n. 12, 172
n. 6

Carthusians, 322 n. 42
Carvajal, Bernardino, cardinal, 172 n.
6

Catechist, 221 n. 9
Categories, 57 n. 10, 59
Catharinus, Ambrosius, 291 n. 10
Celibacy, clerical and monastic, 221
n. 1, 247 n. 13, 263 n. 33, 281 n.
24, 283 ff., 293 f., 314 n. 11, 321,
322, 328, 342 f., 354, 357, 363,
378 (see also Chastity; Old Tes-
tament, on sex, on vows; Vows)
Cellarius , 4

Chancellory, Imperial, 70 n. 1, 99 n.
14

Charles V, emperor, 97 n. 3, 99 n. 14,
129 n. 10, 140, 174 nn. 5, 6, 175
f., 182, 188, 189 n. 8, 193, 195
ff., 198, 198 n. 3, 200, 201 f.,
203, 210, 216, 216 n. 7, 217, 220
n. 12, 226 n. 23, 234 n. 44, 255
n. 18, 270, 315, 340, 392, 395
Chastity, 334 (see also Celibacy; Old
Testament, on sex, on vows;
Vows)

Chievres, lord of (see Cray , William
de)

Christ and his gospel, 12, 14, 35, 62,
66, 153, 189, 286, 328, 335 f..

405

LETTERS

307, 390 ( see also Bishop; Lu-
ther, doctorate, hermeneutics;
Word of God)

Church

early, 308, 311

judgment of, 69, 88 f., 98, 103 n. 2
nature of, 80 n. 13, 369 f.
papal, jurisdiction of, 70 n. 1, 140,
176, 192 n. 3, 211 n. 3, 275 f.
papal, tyranny of, 137, 139 flF., 213,
224 f., 233, 245 f., 250, 308 f.,
396 (see also Bishop; Germans;
Luther, unrest; Nationalism; Pap-
ists; Pope; Reforms, Imperial;
Romans)

puritanic, 79 n. 12
reform of, 116, 211, 401 f.
state relations, 70 n. 1, 139 flF., 211
n. 3, 224, 309 n. 31, 399
territorial of the Reformation, 211,
211 n. 3, 269 n. 8, 275 n. 3, 303
n. 44, 399

Churches, collegiate, 234
Cicero, Ep. ad Atticum , 20 n. 16
Cities, Imperial, 70 n. 1
Clemen, Otto, xm
Clement V, pope, 186 n. 1, 246 n. 6
Clement VI, pope, 84
Clementines, 186, 246 n. 6 (see also
Canon Law)

Clergy, papal (see Cardinals; Church,
papal, tyranny of)

Cologne, 9, 9 n. 2, 150 n. 10, 194,
262

archbishop of (see Wied, Hermann
von)

monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 30, 31, 34, 236 n. 62
monasteries of other Orders, 10 n.
11, 33 n. 0, 317

Cologne Reformation , 247 n. 13
Cologne University, 10 n. 11, 30 n.
15, 38 n. 11, 145 n. 6, 155 n. 5,
185 n. 5, 317, 318, 378 n. 30
(see also Luther, works)
Commandments of God, 66, 297, 302,
331 flF., 400 n. 2

Conception, Immaculate, 291 n. 10
Conciliarism, 80 n. 13, 90 f., 104 n. 5
(see also Paris University)
Confessio Tetrapolitana, 247 n. 13
Confession
of faith, 370

sacrament of penance, 43 f., 67 f.,
211 n. 3, 230 f., 246 f., 263 n. 33,
269, 313, 313 n. 3, 314, 402 (see
also Luther, works)

Confessionalia, 48
Conrad of Thiingen, 30 n. 18
Conscience, 205, 223, 247, 277, 279,
294, 301, 307, 310 f., 337, 377,
396, 402

Constance, 247 n. 13
Constance, Council of (1414-1418),
147 n. 24, 153 n. 18, 189 n. 10,
249 nn. 2, 3

Constantine the Great, emperor, 24 n.

4, 105 n. 8, 178 n. 6
Corporeal, 58

Council, General, 90, 171, 185, 205
f., 208

Council of Regency, 70 n. 1, 85 n. 8,
129 n. 10, 144 n. 2, 381 n. 11,
398 n. 19

Councils of the church (see cities
where they were conducted)
Counter-Reformation, 134 n. 6
Courtiers, 295, 309, 354, 383
Cowl, 12, 33, 50 f., 121, 170, 332,
334, 335, 337
Cranach, Barbara, 202 n. 9
Cranach, Lucas, the Elder, 200, 201,
228 n. 33, 230 n. 12, 236, 309,
352 n. 13

Crapp, Catharine (see Melanchthon,
Catharine)

Cratander, printer, 230 n. 14
Cronberg, Hartmuth von, 216
Cross of Christ, 61 n. 7, 255, 307, 387
Crotus, Rubeanus, 93, 143 n. 7
Croy, William de, 234 n. 44, 255
Culmbach, 31

Cum postquam ( 1518), 105 n. 9
Curia, Roman, 10, 45, 75, 77 n. 2,
84 n. 4, 92, 96 f., 105, 109 n. 9,
114, 125, 137, 138, 143, 144, 163
n. 1, 210, 272 n. 1 (see also See,
Apostolic)

Cursor Bibliae , 5, 135, 135 n. 3, 173
n. 8, 233 n. 34, 236 n. 62
Cuspinian, John, 199 f.

Cyprian, St., 24

Cyrene, Greek goddess, 38 n. 10

D’Ailly, Pierre, 59 n. 19
Dappen, Bernhard, 125 xl 11

406

INDEX

David, 260 f.

Decet Romanum pontificem (1521),
179 n. 1, 192 n. 3

Decretals, 186 (see also Canon Law)
Decretum Gratiani , 186, 266 n. 17
(see also Canon Law)

Demas, 303

Demuth, Nicholas, 160 n. 7
Denmark, 216, 236 n. 60, 303 n. 44
Dessau, 400
Devil (see Satan)

Dialectic, 56 ff.

Diet, Imperial, 70 n. 1 (for the diets
of the Holy Roman Empire, see
cities where they were con-
ducted)

Disciplining with Christian attitude,
13, 211 n. 3, 374 ff., 382 ff., 402
(see also Life, Christian)
Distinctio, 156 if.

District vicar (see Lang; Luther)
Divorce, 211 n. 3, 298, 377 f.

Dolsch, John, 202 n. 14, 338 n. 9
Doleatoris (see Schroder, James)
Dolzig, Hans von, 169 n. 8, 314 n. 12
Dominicans, 6 n. 3, 10 n. 11, 36,
70, 71, 109 n. 13, 247 n. 13, 291
n. 10

Donatus, martyr, 280
Dordrecht, monastery of the Augus-
tinian Eremites, 29 n. 13, 31,
236 n. 62

Draco, John, 223 n. 7
Dresden, 123 n. 5, 393 n. 17

Hog of (see George, duke of
Saxony)

monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 23, 75 n. 13, 149
Dressel, Michael, 20, 31
Duchesne, Guillaume, 289 n. 37
During, Barbara, 202 n. 12
During, Christian, 42 n. 8, 202, 230,
236, 309

Dungersheim, Jerome, 145 n. 6, 164
Duns Scotus, 96 n. 8

Ebemburg, 247 n. 13
Eck, John, 79 n. 12, 80 n. 13, 112,
115, 115 n. 24, 116, 134, 136,
138, 145, 149 n. 2, 152, 179 n. 1,
181, 185 n. 9, 233 n. 33, 258 n. 7
Eck, John, works:

Attack on Luther in Behalf of
Emser (1519), 138 n. 20

Chrysopassus, 187
Defense Against Luther ( 1519),
131 n. 5, 133

Defense Against Luthers Asterisci
(1518), 80 n. 14
Ohelisci (1518), 80 n. 14
Theses for the Leipzig Disputation
(1519), 107, 109 f., 112
Eck, John von, 200 n. 3
Eilenburg, 187, 380
Einhom, Werner, 154 n. 3, 160
Einsiedel, Haugold von, 314 n. 11
Eisenach, 3, 4, 145, 198, 218, 223 nn.
3, 7, 226, 227 n. 31, 272, 329,
388

Eisfeld, 275 n. 3

Eisleben, 60, 145, 171 n. 7, 220, 275
n. 3, 329

Eissermann, John (see Hess, Master
John Eissermann)

Elbe, river, 146 n. 18
Election, Imperial (1519), 84 n. 4, 96
f., 97 n. 3, 123 n. 3, 129 n. 6,
176, 189 n. 8, 203
Elector

of Brandenburg (see Joachim I)
of Mainz (see Albrecht, archbishop
of Mainz)

of Saxony (see Frederick, elector of
Saxony; John, duke of Saxony;
John Frederick, duke of Saxony;
Maurice, elector of Saxony)
of Trier (see Greiffenklau, Richard
von)

relation to Holy Roman Empire,
49 f., 70 n. 1, 244, 392
Electoral College, 70 n. 1, 129 nn. 6,
8, 10

Electoral territory, rights and duties
of, 70 n. 1, 392 (see also Terri-
torial sovereigns)

Emmerich, 30 n. 15
Emperor, Holy Roman, 50, 70 n. 1
(see also Charles V ; Maximilian I)
Emperor, Roman (see Constantine the
Great)

Empire, archmarshal of (see Fred-
erick, elector of Saxony)

Empire, Holy Roman, 44, 49, 128,
140, 145, 163 n. 1, 176, 209, 244
Empire, Roman, 105
Emser, Jerome, 137 n. 19, 187, 192,
230, 234, 264 ff.

LETTERS

Emser, works:

Against Luthers “To the Nobility
of the German Nation* 9 (1520/
21), 192 n. 5

Declaration Concerning Luther* s
Chasing of Goat Emser ( 1519),
137 n. 19

Quadruplica Against Luther*s An-
swer to the Superchristian Book
of Goat Emser (1521), 257 n. 5,
265 n. 10

To the Wittenberg BuU (1521),
192 n. 5

Engelhard, Andrew, 146 n. 18
Erasmus of Rotterdam, xx, 23 ff., 40
f., 52 f., 77 n. 3, 98 n. 6, 99 n.
14, 114 f., 116, 122 f., 123 n. 5,
150, 163 n. 1, 164, 185, 191 n.
2, 205 n. 7, 230 n. 14, 247 n.
13, 275 n. 3, 282 n. 33, 305, 305
n. 4, 306, 316 n. 10, 318, 322 n.
42

Erasmus, works:

Adagia, 26 n. 16, 62 nn. 13, 15,
20, 63 n. 22, 72 n. 9, 258 n. 11,
318 n. 4, 351 n. 6, 354 n. 14,
383 n. 6

Defense Against Faber Stapulensis
(1517), 55

Edition of Jerome’s Works (1516
ff.), 18, 53 n. 2
Enchiridion (1518), 118
Greek New Testament (1516), 23,
53 n. 2, 66 nn. 6, 9, 68 n. 15,
115 n. 18, 116, 230 n. 14, 306
n. 8, 318, 356 n. 7
Outline or Compendium of a True
Theology (1519), 114, 115 n. 18
Someone’s Advice ( Consilium
cujusdam ) , 224
Erbzinsleute, 329

Erfurt, 12 n. 3, 135 n. 3, 143 n. 7,
188 n. 1, 214, 219, 223 f., 227
n. 30, 257, 262, 264, 270, 270
n. 1, 273, 274, 356
monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 3, 5, 6 nn. 2, 3, 7, 14, 15,
18 n. 8, 27, 36, 37 n. 2, 39, 39 n.

3, 41, 43 n. 6, 51, 60, 62, 135,
145, 149, 356

Erfurt University, 5, 6 n. 2, 12 n. 3,
14, 30 n. 18, 37 n. 2, 59 n. 19,
62, 115 n. 21, 136, 137 nn. 14,

19, 143 n. 7, 145, 154 n. 3, 173
n. 8, 223 n. 7, 224 n. 9, 258 n. 7,
275 n. 3

Eschatology, 360 ff.

Eschaus, Thomas, 168, 236
Eschwege, 29 n. 13
Estates, Imperial, 70 n. 1, 203, 205,
207, 208, 209 n. 22, 250, 255
Eucharist (see Lord's Supper)
Eucharistic controversy, 79 n. 12, 212,
247 n. 13, 318 (see also SchwQr -
mer)

Eve of, 76 n. 18, 318
Evil, 375 (see also Disciplining with
Christian attitude; Flattery)
Excommunication, 77 n. 1, 85 n. 15
( see also Luther, excommuni-
cated )

Exhortatio ad principes ne . . . con-
sentiant, 82 n. 10

Exsurge , Domine (1520), 80 n. 13,
176, 179 n. 1, 182 n. 2, 183, 185,
185 n. 9, 186, 190 n. 15, 192,
193, 193 n. 9

Extravagantes, 84 f., 186 (see also
Canon Law)

Faber, Francis, 230
Faber Stapulensis (see Lefevre
d'Etaples)

Faith, 367 ff.

trust, 74, 86, 90, 104, 146 f., 152,
162, 183, 189, 195 f., 233, 263,
391 f.

Famulus , 164 n. 4
Fasting, 69 n. 26, 358, 402
Father confessor, 33 n. 5, 71 n. 7
Fathers, church, 6 n. 3, 7 n. 9, 24 f.,
35 f., 59, 94 n. 4, 105, 116, 230
n. 14, 265, 266
Feilitzsch, Fabian von, 98
Feilitzsch, Philip von, 84 n. 7, 85, 88
n. 11

F eldkirch/V oralberg, 115 n. 21, 164
n. 8, 202 n. 14
Ferber, John, 34 n. 8
Ferdinand of Austria, 217
Fides aliena (see Faith)

Flaccus, A. Persius, 119 n. 6
Fladenstein, 31

Flattery, hypocritical, 374 ff. (see also
Disciplining with Christian atti-
tude)

Florence, 82

INDEX

Florence, Council of (1439), 362
n. 16

France, 210, 270 n. 13, 291 n. 10,
315 n. 18

Francis I, king of France, 91 n. 6,
176 (see also France)

Franciscan babbler, 125-126
Franciscans, 4 n. 6, 6 n. 3, 33 n. 5,
125 n. 11, 164 n. 9, 173 n. 8,
312, 313 n. 6

Franconia, 124, 163 n. 1, 169 n. 9,
184, 223

Frankfurt/Main, 123 n. 3, 129, 197,
200, 203 n. 17

Frankfurt/Oder, 154 n. 1, 160, 219
n. 2

Fraternities, religious, 142 (see also
Luther, works)

Frederick, elector of Saxony, 8, 28 n.
6, 33 f., 49 f., 56, 61, 64 n. 1,
70 n. 1, 71 ff., 77 n. 2, 78, 81
ff., 88, 90, 90 n. 2, 91 ff., 94 nn.
4, 5, 96 f., 101, 103, 108, 110 n.
20, 111, 115, 120, 121 n. 7, 123,
127 f., 130 n. 1, 131 ff., 134 n.
10, 136, 138 n. 24, 142, 144 n. 2,
148, 150, 152, 154, 161, 165,
168, 168 n. 7, 172 n. 6, 173, 174
n. 5, 176, 181 f., 182 n. 2, 183,
187, 188 n. 1, 190, 190 n. 15,
193 ff., 201 n. 3, 205 n. 6, 210,
227 nn. 30, 31, 263, 264 n. 5,
269, 269 n. 8, 271 ff., 275 nn. 3,
6, 294 f., 316 n. 7, 326, 328,
337 n. 4, 338, 344 ff., 352, 381,
382 n. 4, 384, 386, 388 f., 393,
398 nn. 17, 18

Frederick of Hohenstaufen, emperor,
204 n. 2

Freedom, Christian, 228, 298, 299,
300, 302, 335, 336, 402 (see also
Justification; Life, Christian;
Love, Christian)
Freiberg/Saxony, 399, 400
Freiburg/Breisgau, University of, 132
n. 1, 194 n. 16, 205 n. 7, 305 n. 2
Freising, 131 n. 6
bishop of, 104, 109
Friedberg, 203

Froben, John, printer, 18 n. 7, 110 n.

16, 112 n. 9, 115, 115 n. 18
Frosch, John, 92 n. 17
Fuchs, Henry, 235 n. 47
Fuchs, Thomas, 139

Fug, John, 31
Fuggers, 45

Fulda, 163 n. 1, 225 n. 18
Gentile, 286

George, duke of Saxony, xvm, 101 n.
4, 110 n. 20, 111, 123, 137, 137 n.
19, 144 n. 2, 149, 152 n. 9, 183,
193, 201, 233 n. 33, 272, 381,
388, 390 f., 393
Hog of Dresden, 228, 271
Rehoboam of Dresden, 216, 217,
220

Gerbel, Nicholas, 222, 316, 317 f.,
321 n. 34, 323, 328, 344, 346,
355 n. 20

Gerhard, Konrad, 161 n. 1
Germans, Germany, 86, 101, 172, 174
n. 5, 189 n. 10, 195, 197, 202,
209, 250, 267 n. 21, 270, 281,
307, 363, 396 (see also Church,
papal, tyranny of; Luther, un-
rest; Nationalism; Papists; Ro-
mans)

Glaser, Martin, 124
Gleitsmann, 393 n. 17
Goat (see Emser, Jerome)

Golden Legend , 17, 280 n. 22
Golden Rose, 97 n. 3, 101 n. 4
Goldschmidt ( see During, Christian )
Gotha, 202 n. 9, 224, 227 n. 30
monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 16
Government

authority of (see Authority, of the
government)

Imperial, 70, 70 n. 1, 77 n. 2, 83,
85 n. 9, 139, 188 n. 2, 247 n. 13,
388, 394 f.

Grace, 24 f., 46, 48 nn. 18, 19, 144,
156 ff., 282

Gratius, Ortwin, 9 f., 234
Gregory of Nazianzus, St., 24
Gregory I, the Great, pope, 362 n. 16
Gregory IX, pope, 186 n. 1
Greiffenldau, Richard von, 104 n. 4,
109, 127, 128 f., 138, 163 n. 1,
200 n. 3, 205 n. 6, 208 n. 21, 244
Grimm and Wirsung, printers, 230 n.
14

Grimma, monastery of the Augustin-
ian Eremites, 193

Griinenberg, John, printer, 19 n. 8,
40, 69 n. 21, 75 nn. 13, 15, 77

409

LETTERS

n. 1, 94 n. 6, 113 n. 10, 114 n.
14, 121 n. 7, 130 n. 3, 131 n. 5,
136 n. 7, 149 n. 4, 150 n. 9, 174
n. 5, 177, 180 n. 2, 192 n. 5, 229
nn. 4, 5, 230 n. 12, 238, 242,
246 n. 10, 252 n. 11, 258 n. 7,
288 n. 33, 292 f., 296, 324
Gunther, Francis, 173 n. 8, 174
Gulden, 11 f., 11 n. 2, 130, 160, 202
n. 13, 216, 222, 255
Gumann, John, 41
Gunckel, John, 95
Gurk/Carinthia, 99 n. 14

Hagenau, 248
Halberstadt, 160, 377
bishop of, 44

Halle, 143 n. 7, 160, 275 n. 3
brothel at. Idol at, 316, 316 n. 10,
320, 326 f., 340 ff., 365, 372 ff.
(see also Luther, works, not ex-
tant)

Hapsburg dynasty, 175 f., 199, 217 n.
17

Harlots, 343
Hase, Heinrich, 61 n. 4
Hausgemeinde, 236 n. 61
Hausmann, Nicholas, 399 ff.
Hausschein (see Oecolampadius,

John)

Hebrew language, 66, 123, 132, 161,
225, 255 (see also Luther, stud-
ies; Wittenberg University, chair
for Greek and for Hebrew)
Heidelberg, 60 f.

monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 125 n. 9

Heidelberg Disputation (1518), 39 n.
4, 60 ff., 247 n. 13

Heidelberg University, 123, 132 n. 1,
202 n. 14, 230 n. 14, 247 n. 13
Helt, Conrad, 125 n. 9, 129 n. 7, 219
n. 4, 236 n. 63, 325, 337 n. 4
Henry of Ziitphen, 31, 236 n. 62
Henry VIII, king of England, 194 n.
16

Herald, Imperial, 209 n. 22
Herholt, John, 123 n. 8
Hersfeld, 225 f., 235
Herzberg, 28
Hess, John, 143 n. 5
Hess, Master John Eissermann, 166 n.
4

Hesse, 247 n. 13

landgrave of, 225 n. 18 (see also
Philip of Hesse)

Hilaiy, St, 24
Himmel, 30 n. 15
Hirschen, John, 31

Hirschfeld, Bernhard von, 33 n. 2, 50,
314 n. 12

Hog (see George, duke of Saxony)
Holy Land, 33 nn. 2, 5, 204 n. 2, 227
n. 30

Holy Roman Empire (see Empire,
Holy Roman)

Homer, 59 n. 15
Horace, Ars poetica, 26 n. 16
Hourly Prayers, 28, 114 n. 12
Humanism, Humanists, Humanistic
studies, 23 ff., 37, 37 n. 6, 53 n.
3, 66, 80 n. 13, 96 n. 8, 99 n.
14, 101, 105 f., 116, 119 n. 10,
122, 143 n. 5, 150 n. 10, 163 n.

I, 165 n. 2, 222 n. 2, 230 nn. 10,
14, 305 n. 2, 314 n. 11 (see also
Wittenberg University, Humanis-
tic reforms and studies)

Huss, John, 114 n. 16, 143, 147 n.

24, 153, 189 n. 10, 224 n. 9
Huss, works:

On the Church, 153 n. 15, 155
Hussgen (see Oecolampadius, John)
Hussite, 80 n. 13, 144 n. 2, 149 nn. 3,
6, 153, 249, 272 n. 3 (see also
Bohemia; Luther, Hussite)
Hussite wars, 189 n. 10
Hutten, Ulrich von, xx, 150 n. 10,
163 n. 1, 169 n. 9, 193, 216 n.

II, 231, 247, 322 n. 42
Hutter, Conrad, 4 n. 5

Iconoclasts, 401
Inchoative facere, 156 ff.

Indulgences

controversy, 68 f., 97 f., 181 n. 3,
208, 211 n. 3, 339 ff.
doctrine and practice, 44 ff., 68 f.,
74 n. 8, 89, 101 f., 103 ff., 105
n. 9, 118, 139, 316 n. 10, 320,
326 n. 5, 339 ff., 344 ff.
preachers of, 45 ff., 68, 98, 101 f.,
339

Ingolstadt University, 80 n. 13, 99 n.
14, 123 n. 5, 154 n. 3, 166 n. 6,
168 n. 2, 314 n. 11

410

INDEX

Innocent I, pope, 24
Innsbruck, 217

Inquisition, 9, 10 n. 11, 64 n. 1, 154
n. 3, 155 n. 5

Intercession by one's neighbor, 369
(see also Luther, prayer; Prayer)
Irenaeus, St., 24
Italy, 143, 143 n. 5, 230 n. 14

Jacob of Voragine, 17 n. 5
Jacopo de Vio (see Cajetan)

Jager, John ( see Crotus, Rubeanus )
Jakob of Hochstraaten, 10 n. 11
Jerome, St., 24, 40, 52 f., 306 n. 7
Jerome, works:

editions of, 18 nn. 7, 9
Letters, 17, 25, 54
On Famous Men, 17
On Matthew, 266
Jerusalem, 109, 204, 216
Joachim I, elector of Brandenburg,
56, 205 n. 6, 217 n. 14, 220 n. 11
John, duke of Saxony, 181, 264 nn. 4,
5, 269 n. 8, 270 n. 1, 275 n. 6,
307, 313, 313 n. 6, 314, 381 n.

11, 398 n. 19

John Frederick, duke of Saxony, 8,
181 f., 218, 255 n. 22, 269 n. 8
John of Neuss, 30 n. 15
John the Baptist, 22, 261, 321
John XXII, pope, 186 n. 1
Jonas, Justus, 262, 275 n. 3, 338 nn.

9, 11
Judas, 387

Judges, impartial, for Luther's case,
70, 71, 89, 98 f., 103 n. 2, 104,
109, 127, 128 f., 150 n. 10, 172,
196 f., 201 f., 204, 205 f., 208
(see also Luther, trial)

Juterbog, 125 n. 11, 173 n. 8
Julius II, pope, 34 n. 10, 44, 100, 104,
172 n. 6

Justification of the sinner, 12 f., 23 ff.,
156 ff., 335 f., 367 (see also
Freedom, Christian)

Kaiser, John (see Caesar, John)

Kalbe, 154 n. 1

Karlstadt, Andrew, 39 n. 3, 54, 79 n.

12, 80 n. 14, 107, 112 n. 7, 119,
136, 168 n. 5, 184, 232, 263 n.
33, 277 ff., 281 n. 24, 288, 311,
325, 337 n. 4, 338 n. 9, 356, 358
n. 4, 363, 386 n. 1, 400 n. 2

Karlstadt, Andrew, works:

Edition of Augustine's “On the
Spirit and the Letter* (1518),
25 n. 13, 54, 150 n. 8
On Celibacy, Monastic Life and
Widowhood (1521), 283 n. 1,
290, 293 f.

Theses on Celibacy and the Lords
Supper (1521), 277 n. 3, 279
nn. 15, 18

Karlstadt, Anne, 363 n. 22
Karlstadt/Main, 79 n. 12, 223 n. 7
Karsthans, 233
Kauxdorff, Andrew, 378
Keller, John, 123 n. 5, 154 n. 1, 267
n. 22

Kemberg, 95 n. 3, 115 n. 21, 142 n.

2, 148, 231, 235, 278, 378
Keys of the church, 85, 144 (see also
Absolution; Penance)
Kindelbriick, 188

Knight, Imperial, 244 (see also Ger-
mans; Nationalism, Reforms, Im-
perial)

Koberger, J., printer, 67 n. 12
Kopp, Gregory, 154 n. 1
Kraft Myle of Hungen, 225 n. 18
Kreuz, Michael, 382 ff.

Kunzel, John, 23
Kunzelt, George, 187 n. 7

Ladislas of Bohemia, 190
Landgrave

of Hesse (see Philip of Hesse)
of Thuringia (see Frederick, elec-
tor of Saxony)

Landmann, Walpurga, 142 n. 4, 148,
162, 172

Landrentmeister, 163 n. 3
Landsberg, M., printer, 137 n. 19,

138 n. 20

Landstuhl, castle, 244
Lang, John, 14, 18, 27, 36, 36 n. 16,
39, 41, 51, 55 n. 12, 61, 135,
148, 165 n. 2, 170 n. 4, 214, 356
Lang, Matthew, archbishop of Salz-
burg, 99 n. 14, 104, 109, 131 n. 6,
138, 191 n. 2, 217, 359 n. 19
Langenmantel, Christopher, 131
Langensalza, 14, 16
Lateran, Fifth Council, 58 n. 12, 104
n. 5

Latomus, James, 132 n. 1, 229 n. 3,
255 (see also Luther, works)

411

LETTERS

Latter times, 104, 114 n. 16, 215
(see also Antichrist)

Lauterbach, A., 26 n. 14
Law, 24 (see also Old Testament, on
vows; Authority, of the govern-
ment)

Lector, 7 n. 9, 27, 31, 41

Lefevre d’Etaples, 26 n. 15, 40, 55 n.

10, 185 n. 5, 222 n. 2
Legate, Papal, 73 n. 3, 84 f., 87, 90
n. 2, 91, 91 n. 13, 92, 94, 176,
216 n. 7, 272 n. 1

Legenda atirea (see Golden Legend)
Lefffer, George, 7, 41
Leipzig, 72 n. 14, 75, 109, 113 nn.
10, 11, 121, 123, 137 n. 19, 138,
138 n. 20, 164 n. 9, 192, 264 n.
2, 391

Leipzig Disputation ( 1519 ) , 69 n. 24,
79 n. 12, 80 n. 13, 107, 110, 110
n. 20, 112, 112 n. 8, 114 n. 5,
117, 123 n. 7, 125, 126, 131 n.
5, 134 n. 3, 136 n. 9, 137 nn.
14, 19, 145 n. 6, 183, 200 n. 3,
218, 220, 233 n. 33, 246, 249,
258 n. 7, 267 n. 22
Leipzig Goat (see Emser, Jerome)
Leipzig University, 63, 63 n. 24, 78,
110, 123 n. 5, 131, 131 n. 5,
132 n. 1, 134, 136 n. 9, 138, 145,
145 n. 6, 149, 160, 163 n. 3, 164
n. 6, 187 n. 6, 224 n. 9, 230 n.
10, 233, 236 n. 60, 267, 314 n.
11

Leitzkau, 28

Leo X, pope, 44, 64, 69, 71, 71 n. 7,
73 n. 3, 74, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91,
91 nn. 6, 13, 92, 98, 100, 104 n.
5, 108, 176, 315
Lema, 72 n. 9

Letters of Obscure Men, 9 n. 2, 117,
143 n. 7, 163 n. 1
Liber Extra, 186 n. 1
Liber Sextus, 186
Liberal arts, 56 n. 5
Licentiate, 29 n. 13, 92, 123, 139,
173 n. 8, 202 n. 14, 233 n. 34,
264 n. 3, 310, 360
Lichtenberg, 179, 327 n. 10
Liebenwerda, 126, 128 n. 2, 129
Liege, 93, 132 n. 1

Life, Christian, 25, 47, 98, 102, 147,
156 ff., 232, 301, 392, 401 (see

also Disciplining with Christian
attitude; Freedom, Christian;
Love, Christian)

Lindau, 247 n. 13

Lindemann, Margareth (see Luther,
Margaret)

Link, Wenceslas, 7, 29 n. 13, 31, 162,
169 f., 191 n. 2, 193, 357
Linz, 217 n. 17

Liturgy, reforms of, 211 n. 3, 324 f.,
400, 401 f . ( see also Lord’s Sup-
per; Mass)

Lochau, 138, 142, 150 n. 11, 159,
173, 173 n. 8, 398 n. 19 (see
also Saxony, Electoral, court)
Lohr, Andrew, 6 n. 1
Logic, 12 n. 3, 37, 56 n. 5
London, British Museum, 177
Lonicer, John, 164 n. 4
Lord’s Prayer (see Luther, works)
Lord’s Supper, 50, 143, 144 f., 211
n. 3, 279 ff., 281, 281 n. 24, 324
f., 380, 400 ff. ( see also Mass )
Lotther, M., printer, 72 n. 14, 113
nn. 10, 11, 138, 149 n. 3, 150,
155 n. 6, 164 n. 9, 171 n. 5, 172,
190 n. 15, 192 n. 5, 225 n. 17,
229 n. 3, 232 n. 21, 247 n. 11,
291 n. 10, 311 n. 5, 314 n. 9,
324, 331 n. 5, 355 n. 18
Louis XII, king of France, 104 n. 5
Louvain, 55 n. 10, 132, 191 n. 2
Louvain University, 123 n. 5, 132 n.
1, 155 n. 5, 185 n. 5, 229 n. 3,
236 n. 60 ( see also Luther,
works )

Love, Christian, 374 ff. (see also Dis-
ciplining with Christian Atti-
tude; Freedom, Christian; Life,
Christian)

Lupin, Peter, 168, 230, 235
Luscinus, Gajus Fabricius, 25
Luther, Hans, 4, 301, 329 ff.

Luther, Margaret, 329, 336
Luther, Martin

Anfechtung, geistliche, 28 n. 10,
143, 147, 174, 215, 232, 257,
263, 303 n. 44, 307, 308, 319,
328, 366 (see also Luther, prayer;
Satan)
appeals to

General Council of the church,
90, 99, 171, 185

412

INDEX

Imperial government, 174 n. 6,
175 ff.

pope, 86, 89, 90, 91, 99
asked for help, 28, 130 f., 141 f.,
187

banned, 87 f., 90, 210, 233, 263,
276 n. 8, 340, 393 f.
his books burned, 187 n. 6, 192,

207

burned in effigy, 125, 194
bums the Canon Law, 186 f., 192
childhood, 145, 330, 333
church, subordinate to, 69, 88 f.,
98, 101, 103 f., 103 n. 2, 205 f.,

208

condemned, 155 n. 5, 176, 179 n. 1
danger, 69, 74, 81, 97, 148, 188 f.,
233

death, 275 n. 3

despairing of oneself, 7, 12, 13, 34,
53 f., 156 ff.

district vicar, 14 ff., 18, 20 ff., 28,
32, 41, 60, 61 n. 6
doctorate and obligation to teach,
5, 6 n. 5, 49 n. 23, 146 f., 196 f.,
232, 366 ( see also Bishop; Christ
and his gospel; Luther, does not
want glory, laity, office, preach-
ing, teaches; Priesthood; Word
of God )

does not want glory, honor, or prop-
erty, 7, 34 f., 69, 103, 170, 171,
196, 207, 306

Eleutherius, 55 n. 12, 59, 63, 73,
76, 96
Elijah, 232

excommunicated, 90 n. 2, 91 n. 13,
94, 176, 179 n. 1, 210 f., 224 n.
8, 226 n. 22, 393

family tree and relatives, 145, 227,
329

feared by his enemies, 84 ff., 108,
138 n. 24, 213

health, 16, 61, 69, 188, 198, 217,
219, 232 n. 24, 237 ff., 255, 257,
264, 268, 270, 276, 288, 291,
307, 316, 357

hermeneutics, 23, 24 f., 25 n. 13,
26 n. 15, 52 ff., 57 ff., 151, 156
ff., 213, 396 (see also Christ and
his gospel; Word of God )
hermit, 3, 234, 263 n. 36, 270, 323
humility, xiv f., 3, 5, 7, 20, 34 f.,
45 f., 177

Hussite, 80 n. 13, 143 ff., 149, 153,
249 ( see also Bohemia; Huss,
John; Hussite)

imprisonment, threat of, 87, 108 f.,
128 f., 138

Junker Jorg, 228, 228 n. 33, 234
killed, threat of being, 160, 192
laity, concern for, 102, 113 n. 10,
248 f., 252, 308 f., 311, 320, 336,
395 ( see also Bishop; Luther,
doctorate, office, preaching,
priest)
lectures

on Galatians, 28, 30
on Romans, 19, 23
life in public, 69, 75, 91, 100, 108,
110, 119, 147, 152, 177 f., 366
life in seclusion (see Luther, her-
mit; Wartburg, Luther's daily life
in)

Luder, 17, 19, 23, 26, 36, 52
marriage, 290, 303, 331 n. 10
monk, xiv f., 3, 5, 300 f., 331 ff.
(see also Luther, does not want
glory, humility)

Nesicus, 256

offers peace conditions, 97 ff., 102,
103 ff., 152 n. 5, 178, 195 f.
offers to present himself to be tried
and judged, or taught, 74 n. 7,
81, 84 ff., 86, 88, 89, 98, 103 n.
2, 105, 146, 152, 172 n. 4, 178,
195 f., 205, 206, 207 f., 246, 249
f., 390

office entrusted to, 3, 6 n. 5, 49 n.
23, 103 f., 110, 146, 196 f., 232,
248, 274, 319, 336, 343, 395 (see
also Bishop; Luther, doctorate,
laity, preaching, priest; Word of
God)

Poenitentia, evangelical understand-
ing discovered, 65 ff.
prayer of the brethren, 126, 147,
215, 216, 217, 219, 228, 235,
256, 257, 263, 267, 268, 273,
289, 308, 310, 312, 324, 357, 402
( see also Intercession; Luther,
Anfechtung; Prayer)
preaching, 17, 27 f., 113, 189, 202,
219, 221 n. 8, 226, 232, 233, 262,
308 f., 311, 320 (see also Bishop;
Luther, laity, office, doctorate;
Word of God)

priest, 3 f., 28, 308, 28, 142 n. 2,

413

LETTERS

281, 308, 332 (see also Bishop;
Luther, laity, office)
protection, military, offered to, 169
n. 9, 223 n. 3, 244
recanting, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 99,
101, 103, 105, 106, 109, 190,
200, 202, 204, 205 f., 208, 246,
250

school and university, 3 n. 1, 4 n.
6, 5, 6 n. 2, 30 n. 18, 37 n. 2,
145 f.

studies Augustine, Church fathers,
Humanists, Mystics, and Scholas-
tic theologians, 5, 12 n. 3, 25 n.
6, 30 n. 18, 36, 37 n. 2, 53 n. 2,
59, 59 n. 19, 65 n. 3, 225, 366
n. 13 ( see also Fathers, church;
Humanism; Scholasticism; and
the names of individual theologi-
ans)

summoned to
Augsburg (1518), 71, 83
Rome (1518), 72, 75 nn. 10, 11,
76 n. 18

Worms (1520/21), 176, 193, 193
n. 9, 196 f, 196 n. 5, 198 n. 5,
204

teaches, 5, 6, 103, 146, 232, 251 f.,
274 (see also Luther, doctorate,
lectures, life in public )
trial for heresy, 64 n. 1, 70, 74, 76,
83, 95, 96 f., 176 (see also
Judges, impartial)
unrest and violence among the peo-
ple, feared by, 98, 108, 126, 129,
152, 192, 213, 223, 234, 245 f.,
281, 351 n. 9, 307, 396, 399 (see
also Church, papal, tyranny of;
Germans; Nationalism; Papists)
Luther, works:

The Abrogation of the Private Mass,
the Misuse of the Mass (1521),
281 n. 26, 324, 327, 344, 346,
350

Against the Asses of Louvain and
Cologne (1520), 155 nn. 5, 6,
162, 185 n. 5, 229 n. 3, 289 n. 38
Against Latomus (1521), 229 n. 3,
270, 293, 319

Against the Wrongly Named " Spir-
itual F Estate of the Pope and the
Bishops (1522), 349 f.

Answer to the Dialogue of Sylves-

ter Prierias (1518), 72, 75, 79,
81

Answer to the Superchristian . . .
Book of Goat Emser . . . ( 1521),
192 n. 5, 194 n. 16, 257 n. 5,
265 n. 9

Appeal to a Council General of the
Church (1518, 1520), 90, 99,
185

Appeal of M. Luther from Cajetan
to the Pope (1518), 86, 88 f.,
90, 91, 99

Assertion of AU the Articles which
were Condemned by the Latest
Bull of Leo X (1520), 190 n. 15

Asterisci (1518), 80 n. 14

The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church (1520), 281 n. 26

The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy
and True Body of Christ, and the
Brotherhoods (1519), 134, 143
f., 149 n. 3

A Brief Formula to Aid in Under-
standing and Praying the Lords
Prayer (1519), 113 n. 10

A Brief and Sound Explanation of
the LorcTs Prayer (1519), 113 n.
19

Collection of Latin Works, 1518/19,
110, 112 n. 9, 155 n. 5

Commentary on Galatians (1519),
28, 30, 113, 121 n. 6, 125, 168
n. 5

Commentary on St. Matthew
(never written), 320

Edition of Melanchthon’s Defense
Against the Sorbonne (1521),
258 n. 7, 270, 289 nn. 37, 38,
290, 320

Explanations of the Ninety-five
Theses (1518), 64, 69 n. 21, 75,
81, 88, 100 n. 2

Explanation of Some Articles . . .
(1520), 149 n. 4

Explanation of the Theses which
had been Disputed in Leipzig,
1519 , 131 n. 5

Exposition of the Gospels of the
Ten Lepers (1521), 243, 314 n.
9, 320

Exposition of John 20:23 (1521),
294, 297 n. 3

Exposition of Psalm 37 ( 1521 ) ,

248, 252 n. 11, 320

414

INDEX

Exposition of Psalm 68 ( 1521), 229
n. 5, 254 n. 7, 290 n. 6, 320
Exposition of Psalm 119 (1521),
254, 254 n. 8, 271 n. 3, 290
First Lectures on the Psalms (1513-
1515), 12 n. 6, 18 n. 3, 19 n. 0,
26 nn. 14, 15, 28, 67 n. 12
The Freedom of a Christian (1520),
12 n. 6, 180 n. 2, 402 n. 11
German Bible ( see Bible, German
translation by Luther)

German Explanation of the Lords
Prayer (1519), 113 n. 10
Heidelberg Theses (1518), 60
Homilies on the Lord's Prayer
(Lent, 1517), 113 n. 10
Introduction to “Theologia
Deutsch" (1516), 36 n. 17
Invocavit Sermons ( 1522 ) , 400 n. 2,
402 n. 11

Latin Advent Postil (1521), 152,
225, 229, 237 ff., 254 n. 3, 268
n. 1

A [Long] Sermon on Usury (1520),
136 n. 7, 142 n. 2

Magnificat (1521), 219 n. 3, 225,

254, 288, 290, 296, 320
Ninety-five Theses (1517), 45, 46

ff., 49 nn. 22, 23, 55 n. 12, 56,
61 n. 6, 64, 68, 70, 72 n. 14, 80
n. 14, 81, 85, 97 n. 5, 101, 104,
116, 118

Notes to Quincuplici Fabri Stapu -
lensis Psalterio (1513-1515), 26
n. 15

On Confession (1521), 225, 231 n.
18, 244, 246 n. 10, 254, 254 n. 8,
288, 290, 292, 294, 297, 313 £.,
320

On Excommunication (1518), 77,
77 nn. 1, 2

On the Meditation of the Holy
Passion of Christ (1519), 114 n.
14

On Monastic Vows (1521), 321,
328, 329, 331 n. 5, 336, 337,
344, 340, 350, 359
On Preparing for Death (1519),
130

Open Letter to the Imperial Es-
tates (1521), 203, 209 n. 22,

255, 292 n. 1

Open Letter to Pope Leo X (1520),
180 n. 2

The Papacy at Rome: An Answer
to the Celebrated Romanist at
Leipzig (1520), 164 n. 9
Proceedings at Augsburg (1518/
19), 72 n. 8, 87 n. 20, 91 n. 12,
94, 108

Protest and Offer (1520), 172 n.

4, 174, 174 nn. 5, 6, 195 n. 4
Reply to . . . Ambrose CathaHnus

(1521), 291, 319, 357
Reply to the Answer of the Leip-
zig Goat (1521), 192 n. 5
Second Lectures on the Psalms
(1519-1521), 114 n. 13, 121 n.

7, 125, 131, 136, 150, 225
Sermons, 1520/21, 320 f., 321 n.

Seven Penitential Psalms (1517),
19 n. 6, 40

Short Explanation of the Ten Com-
mandments (1518), 113 n. 10
A Short Explanation of the Ten
Commandments , of the Creed ,
and of the Lords Prayer ( 1520 ) ,
113 n. 10

A [Short] Sermon on Usury (1519),
136

A Sincere Admonition . . . to Guard
Against Insurrection (1521/22),
352 355

Smalcald Articles (1536/37), 362
n. 15

Small Catechism (1529), 113 n. 10
Ten Sermons on the Ten Com-
mandments (1518), 113 n. 10
Tessaradecas Consolatoria (1520),
134, 328

Theses Against Scholastic Theology
(1517), 38 n. 9, 60
Theses for Leipzig (1519), 107 n.
0

Theses on Vows (1521), 298 ff.,
302 n. 36, 310, 311 n. 5
To the Christian Nobility of the
German Nation (1520), 167 n.

8, 170 f., 172 n. 3, 192 n. 5, 194
n. 16, 234 n. 38

To the Leipzig Goat (1521), 192
n. 5

Wartburg Postil (1521/22), 145 n.

5, 237 ff., 258, 271 n. 3, 276,
288, 292 f., 296, 314, 320, 337,
340, 356, 359

A Word to Penitents about the

415

LETTERS

Forbidden Books (1521), 246 f.,
247 n. 11

Luther's works, not extant:

Against the Idol at Halle (1521),
316, 316 n. 10, 320, 326, 326 n.
1, 340 ff., 343, 344 ff., 350 f.,
353, 353 n. 7, 365 n. 1, 372, 377
Notes on Aristotle’s Physics (1516?),
38, 112

Notes on Canon Law (1519?), 114
Shorter Postil (1520/21?), 237 ff.,
254, 268 n. 1, 321 n. 31
Lyons, Council of (1274), 362 n. 16

Magdeburg, 28 n. 5, 146, 161, 183
n. 5, 218, 377

archbishop of, 44, 378 (see also
Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz)
monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 23

Mainz, 123 n. 5, 160, 194, 230 n. 14,
322 n. 42, 377

archbishop of (see Albrecht, arch-
bishop of Mainz)

Mandates, Imperial, dated:

March 10, 1521, against Luther,

198 n. 3, 201, 207
January 20, 1522, against the
Wittenberg disturbances, 388,

397

Mansfeld, 4, 145, 329
counts of, 145, 220 ( see also
Albrecht of Mansfeld)

Marburg University, 164 n. 4, 166 n. 4
Marck, Erard de la, bishop of Liege,
93 n. 1
Margrave

of Brandenburg (see Albrecht, arch-
bishop of Mainz; Joachim I )
of Meissen (see Frederick, elector
of Saxony)

Marlianus, Aloisus, bishop of Tuy, 234
n. 45

Marriage of priests, 221, 231, 235,
342 f, 344, 353 n. 7, 354, 377
(see also Celibacy; Vows)
Martens, D., printer, 55 n. 10, 155
n. 5

Martyrs, 31 n. 21, 33 n. 6, 280
Mass, 3 f., 39 n. 3, 79 n. 12, 114 n.
12, 152 n. 2, 281, 317, 324, 325,
338 n. 8, 364 n. 28, 382 n. 4,

401 (see also Lord’s Supper;
Luther, works)

Masson, James (see Latomus, James)
Maurice of Saxony, 33 n. 2
Maximilian I, emperor, 71, 72, 74, 93
n. 1, 96 f., 99 n. 14, 104 n. 5,
163 n. 1, 175, 176, 194 n. 16
Medici family, 100

Meissen, margrave of (see Frederick,
elector of Saxony )

Melanchthon, Catharine, 166 n. 5,
217, 303 n. 42, 308
Melanchthon, Philip, xix, 55 n. 12,
63 n. 23, 77, 77 n. 3, 83, 83 n.
12, 107, 111, 119, 122 n. 2, 123
n. 5, 134 ff., 143 n. 5, 148, 150,
162, 164 n. 8, 165 ff., 184, 210,
213, 215, 219, 221, 222 n. 1,
228, 230 n. 14, 232, 238 f., 242
f, 254 n. 7, 256, 264, 269, 277,
283, 290 n. 6, 292 f., 296, 305 n.
4, 308 f., 310 f., 314, 316, 321,
322 n. 42, 323 ff., 337, 344 ff.,
352 ff., 356 n. 5, 359, 364
inaugural address, 78
lectures

on the Epistles to the Corinthians,
267 n. 26

on Matthew, 136 n. 4
Melanchthon, works:

Apology ( 1531 ), 77 n. 3
Defense (1521), 258 n. 7, 270, 289
n. 37, 315 n. 15, 320
Loci communes (1521), 232, 258
n. 13, 288, 297, 298, 320, 355
On True and Scholastic Theology
(1520), 151 n. 14
The Passion of Christ and Anti-
christ (1521), 230 n. 12
Meldorf, 236 n. 62
Memmingen, 247 n. 13
monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 11
Mendicants, 16

Merseburg, bishop of, 152 n. 5, 164
n. 9, 183 n. 5
Mesopotamia, 67
Metanoia (see Poenitentia)

Metzel, John, 29
Micio, 303
Milan, 112 n. 5

Milan, Council of ( 1511/12), 104 n. 5
Miltenberg, 223 n. 7

416

INDEX

Miltitz, Charles von, 96 el 1, 97 n. 3,
99, 100, 101, 101 n. 4, 103 n. 2,
108, 109 n. 11, 115 n. 24, 127,
128, 129, 138, 138 n. 24, 146,
179 ff.

Mohra, 227 n. 27, 329
Monasticism, 15 f., 18, 20 ff., 29 f.,
211 n. 3, 225 n. 18, 321 (see
also Celibacy; Luther, monk;
Vows; Wittenberg disturbances)
Muhlberg, battle at (1547), 181
Muhlpfordt, Hermann, 180 n. 2
Miinzer, Thomas, 79 n. 12
Munich, monastery of the Augustinian
Eremites, 31, 32, 39 n. 4, 55,
169

Mumer, Thomas, 194 n. 16, 234
Mysticism, Mystics, 36 n. 16, 59 n.
19, 366 n. 13

Naples, 73 n. 3

Natalibus, Peter de, Catalogus sanc-
torum, 17

Nathin, John, 6 n. 2, 151
Nationalism, nationalistic opposition
to the papal church, xx, 169 n.
9, 213, 216, 233, 234, 244, 245,
396 ( see also Church, papal, tyr-
anny of; Germans; Luther, un-
rest; Reforms, Imperial; Romans)
Naumburg

bishop of, 63 n. 25, 104
evangelical bishop of, 218
Navarre, 155 n. 5
Neo-Platonism, 37 n. 4
Nesicus, Henry, 256
Netherlands, 33 n. 6, 233 n. 34
Neustadt, monastery of the Augus-
tinian Eremites, 20, 31
New Testament, edition of Greek text
by

Erasmus (see Erasmus, works)
Gerbel, 321 n. 34, 355 n. 20
Nicaea, Council of (325), 105 n. 8,
178 n. 6

Nicene Creed, 370 n. 43
Nicholas of Lyra, 26 n. 14, 67 n. 12,
225 n. 16

Niger, George, 61 n. 12
Nominalists, 30 n. 18, 59 n. 19, 85 n.

11 (see also Occam, William)
Nordhausen, 173 n. 8, 275 n. 3
monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 16, 125 n. 9

Niimberg, 43 n. 5, 67 n. 12, 92, 123,
124, 125 n. 9, 149 n. 3, 150 n.
10, 172, 184, 227 n. 32, 388,
397, 398 n. 19

monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 41 n. 3, 51 n. 8, 60, 72,
92, 125 n. 9, 161, 162, 169, 170,
193

Oakes and Bedes, 289
Oberehnheim, 194 n. 16
Occam, William, Occamists, 6 n. 2,
30 n. 18, 96 n. 8, 156 n. 3 (see
also Nominalists)

Oecolampadius, John, 149 n. 2, 230
n. 14, 255, 258
Oecolampadius, works:

On Confession (1521), 230 n. 14,
253 n. 1, 254

The Unlearned Canons (1519), 149
Old Testament
on religion, 24 f.
on sex, 285, 334
on vows, 285

Olympius, a bishop in Spain, 24

Orationes ceremoniales , 114

Origen, 54, 309

Orlamiinde, 79 n. 12

Ostia, bishop of, 172 n. 6

Ovid, Metamorphoses, 9 n. 6, 95, 107

Oxford, Bodleian Library, 349

Padua University, 73 n. 3
Papists, 223, 224, 249, 266, 269, 272
f., 281, 321, 334, 336, 396 (see
also Church, papal, tyranny of;
Germans; Luther, unrest; Nation-
alism; Pope; Romans; See, Apos-
tolic)

Parents (see Authority, of parents)
Paris University, 112 n. 5, 136 n. 9,
137, 229 n. 3, 258 n. 7, 270, 289,
314 (see also Conciliarism; Lu-
ther, works)

Parma University, 112 n. 5
Passover, 67

Paul, apostle, 24 f., 25 n. 13, 31, 67
Paul of Burgos, 67
Pavia, 73 n. 3
Peasants' War, 282 n. 33
Pelagians, 24 n. 2

Penance, sacrament of, 211 n. 3, 324
(see also Absolution; Confession;
Indulgences; Keys of the church;

417

LETTERS

Luther, Poenitentia; Satisfaction)
Penates , 60 n. 1
Perfective facere, 156 ff.

Permitted things, 259, 278
Peter de Natalibus (see Natalibus,
Peter de)

Peter Lombard, Sentences , 5, 28 n. 3,
30, 37, 42, 156 n. 3, 313 n. 3
Petrus Hispanus, 42 n. 7
Petzensteiner, John, 227 nn. 29, 32
Peutinger, 205
Pfaffenbeck, 383

Pfeffinger, Deginhard, 32, 50, 71, 72,
78, 109 n. 11, 121
Pforzheim, 317

Philip, bishop of Naumburg ( see
Naumburg bishop of )

Philip of Hesse, 272 n. 3
Pisa, Council of (1511/12), 104 n. 5
Planitz, Hans von der, 381 n. 11, 398
n. 19

Pliny the Elder, 42 n. 7, 165 f.
Plotinus, 37 n. 4
Plutarch, 307, 374 n. 9
Podiebrad, king of Bohemia, 272 n. 3
Poenitentia , 43 f ., 65 ff . ( see also
Confession; Penance)

Politi, Lancellotto de" ( see Cathari-
nus, Ambrosius)

Pomerania, 223 n. 7, 236 n. 60, 303 n.
44

Pope (see also Church, papal, tyr-
anny of; Curia, Roman; Papists;
See, Apostolic)

Antichrist, 114, 137, 215
authority of, 68, 72 n. 14, 102, 127,
167 n. 9

murderer of souls, 109, 253, 295
primacy of, 91 n. 6, 164 n. 4, 291
n. 10

state of, 100
Porphyry, 37, 57 ff.

Portiuncula indulgence, 338 n. 8
Postilla, 225 n. 16 (see also Luther,
works; Nicholas of Lyra; Paul of
Burgos)

Prague, 224

Prayer, 342 ( see also Intercession;
Luther, prayer)

Predestination, 187 n. 4, 291 n. 10
Premsel, James, 95 n. 5
Pretisch, 146
Prettin, 180

Prierias, Sylvester, 71 n. 7, 72 n. 14,
81 n. 4, 110, 167

Priesthood, 3 f., 28 n. 3, 142, 265,
287, 301, 308, 308 n. 27 (see
also Bishop; Luther, doctorate,
laity; Word of God)

Primate of the Roman Catholic Church
in Germany, 44, 45, 99 n. 14
Privy Council of the Emperor, 216 n.
7

Propst, James, 233 n. 34, 236
Protheus, 38

Priiss, J., printer, 333 n. 37
Prussia, 134 n. 6

Purgatory, 43 f., 46, 48 n. 18, 362 f.
Pythagoreans, 37

Quentell Press, 9 n. 2
Quintilian, 42 n. 7, 166 n. 4

Ramsau, monastery of the Augustinian
Eremites, 124
Rational, 58

Reformation, Reformed branch of,
230 n. 14, 322 n. 42 (see also
Calvinism; Zwingli, Ulrich)
Reforms ( see also Church, reform of;
Lord’s Supper)

Imperial, 49, 216 n. 11, 244 (see
also Church, papal, tyranny of;
Germans; Nationalism)
Regensburg, 139 ff., 248
Regulus, Marcus Atilius, 25
Rehoboam (see George, duke of
Saxony)

Reichsregiment (see Council of
Regency )

Reichsstande ( see Estates, Imperial )
Reichstag (see Diet, Imperial)

Relics, 33 f., 50, 161, 387
Renaissance church, 99 n. 14, 100
Reuchlin, John, 9 ff., 31, 38 n. 11, 57,
69, 77 n. 3, 99 n. 14, 123 n. 5,
132 n. 1, 143 n. 7, 172 n. 6, 230
n. 14, 318
Rheticus, bishop, 24
Rhineland, 33 f., 134 n. 6, 216 n. 11
Riedner, John, 314 n. 11
Romans, Italian Christians and prel-
ates, 82, 92, 109, 167, 202, 203,
213 (see also Cardinals; Church,
papal, tyranny of; Germans; Na-
tionalism; Papists)

418

INDEX

Rome, 18 n. 9, 44, 46, 73 n. 3, 76
n. 18, 82, 87 n. 2, 92 n. 16, 109,
125, 127, 128, 129, 172 n. 6 (see
also Curia, Roman; Papists; Pope;
See, Apostolic)

Rostock University, 223 n. 7
Ruchrath, John, 185 n. 5

Safe-conduct, 392
St. Gall, 219 n. 2
for Huss, 189 n. 10
for Luther, 75, 138, 195 f., 198 nn.
3, 5, 201, 204, 207, 208, 208 n.

21, 210, 223, 226, 249 f.

Salomon ben Levi ( see Paul of

Burgos)

Salzburg, 108 n. 3, 191 n. 2

archbishop of (see Lang, Matthew)
Sapidus (see Witz, John)

Sarah, 32 n. 29
Sardanapales, 29

Satan, 16, 152, 166, 168, 169, 214,
230, 235, 265, 266, 267, 269,

273, 278, 295, 301, 306 n. 7,

307, 308, 319, 321, 328, 333,

336, 354, 355, 366, 368, 371,

387, 390, 395, 401 (see also Lu-
ther, Anfechtung)

Satisfaction (sacrament of penance),
43 ff., 68

Savonarola, 291 n. 10
Saxony, Ducal, xvm, 110 n. 20 (see
also George, duke of Saxony;
Maurice, elector of Saxony)
Saxony, Electoral, 46 n. 1, 49, 70 n.
1, 79 n. 12, 94 n. 4, 128, 131 n.
6, 275, 393

court, court chaplain, government,
8, 28, 33 n. 2, 70, 79, 83, 85 n.
8, 90 n. 2, 108, 130 n. 1, 138 n.

22, 154, 162, 163 n. 3, 167 f.,
173 n. 8, 179 n. 1, 180, 186, 188,
198, 228, 253, 263, 264 n. 4,
268, 269, 271, 272, 275 n. 3,
313 n. 6, 314 n. 11, 326 n. 1,
344, 354 f., 366 n. 6, 380 n. 3,
383 ff., 393 n. 17, 398 n. 19

electors (see Frederick, elector of
Saxony; John, duke of Saxony;
John Frederick, duke of Saxony;
Maurice, elector of Saxony)
Ernestine family, 49, 110 n. 20,
181

visitations of parishes (1526 ff.),
163 n. 3, 182, 211 n. 3, 275 n. 3,
400

Schalbe family, 3 n. 1, 4 n. 6
Schart, Mark, 130

Schaumburg, Sylvester, 169, 223 n. 3
Schenck, W., printer, 12 n. 3
Schenkenau, 32 n. 29
Scheurl, Christopher, 42 n. 1, 43 n. 5
Schirlenz, N., printer, 283 n. 1, 349
Schleibe, 33 n. 2

Schlettstadt/Alsace, 222 n. 2, 247 n.

Schmolln, 264
Schneeberg, 140

Scholasticism, Scholastic studies,
schoolmen, 28 n. 3, 37 f., 42, 56
ff, 82, 96, 156 ff, 165 n. 2, 318
(see also Luther, studies; Tradi-
tionalists; and the names of indi-
vidual theologians and theologi-
cal schools)

Schroder, James, 223 n. 7
Schiirer, printer, 318
Schulteus, Jerome, bishop of Bran-
denburg, 64, 82 n. 6, 125 n. 11
Schurf, Jerome, 74 n. 9, 200 n. 3,
219 n. 2, 227, 394, 398 nn. 17,
19

Schwarmer, 79 n. 12, 211 f. (see also
Eucharistic controversy; Witten-
berg disturbances)

Schwarzerd ( see Melanchthon, Philip)
Schwenckfeld, 143 n. 5
Schwertfeger, John, 230, 236
Scotists, 96

See, Apostolic, 10, 48 n. 20, 69, 73
n. 3, 141, 186 n. 1 (see also Cu-
ria, Roman; Papists; Pope)
Seiboldsdorf, 32 n. 29
Semen, 283 f, 293
Seneca, Epistolae, 351 n. 6
Sentences (see Peter Lombard)

Sex ( see Celibacy; Chastity; Old
Testament, on sex; Vows)

Sicily, king of ( see Charles V )
Sickingen, Francis von, 163, 163 n.
1, 169 n. 9, 174 n. 6, 205 n. 5,
216 n. 11, 230 n. 14, 244 f.,
247 n. 13, 254
Sienna, 291 n. 10
Sigismund, emperor, 189
Signs in the sky, 155
Silesia, 143 n. 5, 230

419

LETTERS

Simler, James, 61

Sin, sinner, 12 ff., 48 n. 18, 65 ff.,
282, 303 f., 367
Smalcaldic League, 269 n. 8
Smalcaldic War, 33 n. 2, 181, 218,
219 n. 2, 275 n. 3
Sostrata, 303
Souls of departed, 360 ff.

Spain, 24 n. 4, 132 n. 1, 270 n. 13
king of, 97 n. 3, 150, 176, 203 (see
also Charles V, emperor)

Spalatin, George, 8 f., 17, 18, 23, 32,
42, 50, 52, 56, 60, 70, 73, 76,
80, 83, 83 n. 12, 90, 93, 95, 98,
106, 108 n. 18, 111, 122, 122 n.
2, 126, 130, 132 f., 134 n. 10,
141, 143, 148 n. 32, 151, 154,
156, 159, 161, 163, 165, 165 n.
2, 167, 171, 173, 179, 181, 186,
188, 193 n. 9, 197, 203, 216 f.,
219, 222, 230 n. 14, 231, 237 ff.,
242 f., 253, 263, 268, 270, 270
n. 1, 272, 274, 288 f., 291, 305,
305 n. 4, 311 f., 315, 319, 322 n.
44, 323, 325, 337, 344 ff., 350,
353, 366 n. 6, 380, 382, 398 n.
19

Spangenberg, 29

Spangenberg, Master ( see Bethel,
John)

Spender, Lazarus, 149 n. 3, 184
Spenlein, George, 11 ff.

Spieszhaimer, John (see Cuspinian,
John)

Spirit, Holy, 53 f., 303
Stapulensis, Faber (see Lefevre
dTStaples )

Staupitz, Gunther von, 115 n. 22, 268
Staupitz, John von, 5, 6 n. 5, 7, 12,
19 n. 4, 29 n. 13, 31, 32, 33 f.,
36 n. 16, 39, 41, 51, 55, 61, 64
n. 1, 72, 86, 108, 115 n. 22,
125, 138, 153, 162, 170, 171 n.
7, 191, 268 n. 27, 359
Stottemheim, 155 n. 9, 332 n. 13
Strassburg, 222 n. 2, 247 n. 13, 305
n. 2, 318, 322 nn. 42, 44, 373
bishop of, 167 n. 8, 194 n. 16, 318
Strassen, Michael von der, 393 n. 17
Student riots, 168 f., 214, 223, 270
n. 1

Stadium generate , 5, 6 n. 2, 7 n. 9,
25 n. 6, 28, 28 n. 3, 30 n. 16
Sturm, Caspar, 197 n. 1, 208 n. 21

Superintendent, 218, 220, 275 n. 3,
303 n. 44

Swawe, Peter, 227 n. 27, 236 n. 60,
267

Switzerland, 163 n. 1, 247 n. 13
Sword, law of (see Authority, of the
government)

Sybarites , 29
Syllogism, 56 n. 5, 57
Symbols, religious, 401 f. (see also
Schwarmer)

Synaxis , 317 (see also Lord's Supper)
Syndicus, 289 n. 37

Tabor, Mount, 361
Tartaretus, 42 n. 7

Taubenheim, John von, 163 n. 3, 316,
323

Tauler, John, 36 (see also Mysticism)
Taxes, 51 f., 82, 84 n. 4, 142, 224,
393 n. 17
Terence, 303 n. 42

Territorial church (see Church, terri-
torial of the Reformation)
Territorial sovereigns, 50, 217 n. 18,
244 ( see also Elector, relation )
Tetzel, John, 45, 68 n. 20, 70, 71 n. 7,
109, 181 n. 3, 340, 342 (see also
Indulgences, preachers of)
Teutonic Order, 134
Thomists, 58 nn. 12, 13, 81, 96 n. 8,
168 n. 5, 291 n. 10
Thuringia, 228 n. 37
landgrave of (see Frederick, elec-
tor of Saxony

Thuringian Forest, 219 n. 10, 227,
227 nn. 30, 31
Tonsure, 308, 334

Torgau, 28, 39 n. 3, 51, 95, 138, 180,
264 n. 4, 269, 378 n. 36
Tortosa, bishop of, 155 n. 5
Traditionalists (Luther's opponents),
10, 37 f., 40, 53 n. 3, 110, 117 f.,
122, 132, 150 n. 10, 156 ff., 178,
250 f., 362 (see also Scholasti-
cism)

Treasury of merits, 44, 84 ff.

Trent, Council of, 291 n. 10
Trier, 128 f., 138

archbishop of ( see Greiffenklau,
Richard von)

Trutvetter, Jodocus, 37, 38, 41, 57 ff.,
62

Trutvetter, works:

420

INDEX

Summulae totius logicae . . . (1501),
12 n. 3

Tubingen, monastery of the Augus-
tinian Eremites, 64 n. 1
Tubingen University, 64 n. 1, 77 n.
3, 99 n. 14, 123 n. 5, 132 n. 1,
137 n. 19, 154 n. 3, 219 n. 2,
230 n. 14, 317
Turks, 82 n. 10, 189 n. 10

Unchastity, 342

Unigenitus Dei FUius (1343), 84 n.
6

Uringer, Caspar, 322
Usingen, Master ( see Amoldi,
Bartholomew)

Utraquists, 144 n. 2, 153 n. 15 ( see
also Bohemia; Huss, John; Hus-
sites; Lord’s Supper)

Vehus, Jerome, 205 n. 7, 208 n. 21
Venice, 57 n. 10
Vergil, Georgica, 38 n. 10
Via antiqua, 59 n. 19
Via modema, 59 n. 19
Viceroy of the Emperor, 128, 195,
217 n. 17
Vienna, 155, 199
Vienna University, 99 n. 14, 199
Vienne, Council of (1312), 58 n. 12,
246 n. 6

Vigil ( see Eve of)

Virginity, 284, 334 ( see also Celibacy;
Chastity; Old Testament, on sex;
Vows)

Virgins, Eleven Thousand, 33 n. 6
Vision, Beatific, 43 f.

Visitations of Protestant parishes ( see
Saxony, Electoral, visitations)
Vogt, Voigt, James, 33 n. 5, 43, 51,
313 n. 6

Vows, clerical and monastic, 277 ff.,
281 n. 24, 297 ff., 310 f., 321,
331 ff., 337 f., 354, 357 ff. ( see
also Celibacy; Chastity; Old Tes-
tament, on sex, on vows)

Waltershausen, 227
Warham, William, archbishop of Can-
terbury, 305 n. 4

Wartburg, 4 n. 6, 39 n. 3, 79 n. 12,
210, 213, 214 n. 5, 215, 220,
222, 222 n. 2, 227 n. 31, 228,
243 f., 246, 248, 253, 255 f., 264,

268 ff., 272, 274, 277, 283, 289,
291, 296, 305, 310, 312, 315, 317,
319, 321, 322 n. 44, 323, 325,
337, 339, 346, 348, 353, 356 f.,
357, 360, 364, 372, 380, 382,
386, 388, 393 (see also Ber-
lepsch, Hans von)

Luther kidnapped and taken to the
Wartburg, 201, 209 n. 22, 210,
212, 215, 219, 223, 223 n. 3,
227, 227 n. 31, 233, 264 n. 5,
269, 270 n. 1, 271 ff., 319
Luther’s daily life in the Wartburg,
212, 214, 219, 221, 225, 232, 237
ff., 255, 263 n. 36, 267, 274, 294
ff., 319 ff., 351 (see also Luther,
hermit, life in public)

Luther’s return from the Wartburg,
233, 263, 319, 363 f., 371 f., 380
f., 386 n. 1, 388, 391, 393, 395
ff., 398 n. 17

Weimar, 188 n. 1, 198 n. 3, 313 n. 6
Weinsberg, 230 n. 14
Weissenburg, 247 n. 13
Wenckheim, Burckhard Hund von,

227 nn. 30, 31
Werra River, 227 n. 25
Wesel, 185 n. 5
Westphalia, 43 n. 6
Widowhood, 279, 284 f. (see also In-
dex to Scripture Passages, I Tim.
5:3-16)

Wied, Hermann von, 34, 247 n. 13
Will, free, 117, 144, 159
William of Anhalt, 183 n. 5
William of Isenburg, 134 n. 6
Wittenberg 19 n. 8, 29, 30, 42 n. 8,
69 n. 21, 77 n. 1, 78, 88 nn. 3,

10, 90 n. 2, 94 n. 6, 113 n. 10,
114 n. 14, 120, 121 n. 7, 123,
125, 130 n. 3, 131 n. 5, 134 n. 4,
136 n. 7, 138, 148 n. 32, 149 nn.

3, 4, 150 nn. 10, 11, 155 n. 6,
161, 162, 164 n. 9, 165, 166 n. 5,
168 f., 171 n. 5, 180 n. 2, 186,
190 n. 15, 192 n. 5, 197 n. 1,
202, 212, 215, 219 n. 2, 221,
223, 225 n. 17, 229, 229 nn. 3,

4, 230 n. 12, 232 n. 21, 238, 246
n. 10, 247 n. 11, 248, 250, 252 n.

11, 256, 258, 258 n. 7, 274, 281
n. 24, 283 n. 1, 284, 288, 290,
291 n. 10, 302, 308, 311, 311 n.

5, 314 n. 9, 316 n. 10, 320, 322

421

LETTERS

n. 42, 324, 327, 331 n. 5, 344,
348 ff., 353 n. 4, 355 nn. 18, 20,
356 nn. 1, 5, 359, 372, 380, 391,
393 ff., 401

All Saints' Chapter and Castle
Church, 33 n. 5, 45, 46 n. 1, 50,
55 n. 12, 79 n. 12, 142 n. 4, 161,
202 n. 14, 235 n. 51, 275 n. 3,
310, 338, 360, 387 n. 3
City church ( Stadtpfarrkirche ), 28,
221 nn. 8, 9, 303 n. 44, 309 n.
37, 311 n. 8

monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 5, 6 n. 3, 8 n. 1, 11, 17,

18, 20, 23, 27, 29 n. 12, 30 n.

15, 31 n. 24, 32, 36, 39, 41, 42,
43, 49, 52, 56, 60, 64, 64 n. 1,
70, 73, 76, 80, 90, 93, 95, 103,
106, 108, 111, 115 n. 22, 116,
120, 122, 124, 125, 125 n. 9,

126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 135,

141, 143, 145 f., 148, 149 n. 6,
151, 154, 156, 159, 161, 163,

165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175,

181, 186, 188, 191, 194, 233 n.
34, 268 n. 27, 324, 337 f., 352
n. 13, 356, 358 n. 4, 359, 399

plague, 23, 30, 274 n. 1, 316
Wittenberg Concord (1536), 247 n.

Wittenberg disturbances (1521/22),
33 n. 5, 77 n. 3, 79 n. 12, 199,
211 f., 281 n. 24, 311 n. 7, 364
n. 28, 381 n. 11, 386 n. 1, 388,
389, 390, 395, 401 f. (see also
Schwarmer)

Wittenberg University, xvm, 5, 8, 14,

19, 29 n. 13, 30 n. 15, 31 nn. 21,
24, 39 nn. 3, 4, 41 n. 3, 43 n. 5,
54 n. 7, 59 n. 19, 61 n. 3, 63 n.
24, 64 n. 1, 71, 74 n. 9, 79, 79 n.
12, 83 n. 12, 90, 92 n. 17, 94 n.
4, 95 nn. 3, 5, 96 n. 8, 115 n. 21,
123, 125, 125 n. 9, 130 n. 1, 135
n. 3, 136, 138, 143 n. 5, 145 f.,
154 n. 1, 161, 162 n. 5, 164 nn.
4, 8, 166 n. 4, 168 f., 169, 173 n.
8, 179 n. 1, 185 n. 9, 202 n. 14,
218, 219 n. 2, 220, 223 n. 7, 227
n. 32, 230 n. 13, 232, 233 n. 34,
235 n. 51, 236 nn. 60, 62, 266 n.
19, 269, 274 n. 1, 275 n. 3, 284,
303 n. 44, 311, 378 n. 36, 393 n.
17

chair for Greek and for Hebrew,
42 n. 7, 63, 63 n. 23, 77 n. 3,
123, 123 n. 4, 132, 154 nn. 1, 3,
160, 161 (see also Hebrew lan-
guage)

Humanistic reforms and studies, 37
n. 6, 38, 41 f., 57 ff., 78 n. 4,
82, 83, 95 f., 106 f., 112, 165 f.
(see also Humanism)
reorganization of, 269 n. 3, 275,
289, 308

Witz, John, 222 n. 2
Wolf, Peter (see Lupin, Peter)
Wolfgang of the Palatinate, 61
Word of God (see also Bishop; Christ
and his gospel; Luther, doctor-
ate, hermeneutics, laity, preach-
ing)

effective, 153, 309, 374 ff., 402 f.
glory of, 251 f., 306, 327
independent from man, 30, 232
intolerable to the world, 103 f.,
146, 152

not subject to anyone, 206 ff., 226
one must suffer persecution and
death for it, 201, 214, 221, 228,
232, 249, 307, 319
World, affairs of, 206, 259
Worms, 248

Worms, Diet of (1521), 74 n. 9, 129
n. 10, 143 n. 7, 174 nn. 5, 6, 176,
188 f., 188 n. 1, 189 n. 8, 192,
196 f., 199 ff., 203 ff., 208 n. 21,
210 f., 216 n. 6, 218, 219, 219
n. 2, 222 n. 2, 224 n. 8, 225 ff.,
231 n. 16, 234, 236 n. 60, 244,
246, 249, 255, 256 n. 25, 272,
272 n. 1, 275 n. 3, 292 n. 1, 307,
321, 322 n. 44, 324, 390
Worms, Edict of (1521), 210, 211,
216 n. 7, 220 n. 12, 223, 253 n.
1, 255, 340 n. 9, 392 n. 15, 393
Worship (see Liturgy)

Wurzburg
bishop of, 30 n. 18
monastery of the Augustinian Ere-
mites, 60

Wycliffe, John, 147 n. 24, 149 n. 6,
249

Zainer Bible, 363 n. 26
Zasius, Ulrich, 205 n. 7
Zeiger, Balthasar, 377 n. 27

422

INDEX

Zerbst, 148 n. 32, 150 n. 11
Zeschau, Wolfgang, 193
Ziegler v 329 n. 1
Zinna, abbot of, 134 n. 7
Zwetzen, Heniy, 31
Zwickau, xiv, 180 n. 2, 399
Zwickau prophets, 39 n. 3, 364, 365
ff., 380, 381, 386 n. 1, 401

Zwilling, Gabriel, 39 n. 3, 79 n. 12,
281 n. 24, 325, 337 n. 4, 356,
358 n. 4, 380 n. 4, 386 n. 1, 400
n. 2

Zwingli, Ulrich, 123 n. 5, 163 n. 1,
212, 230 n. 14, 247 n. 13, 318,
322 n. 42

423

INDEX TO SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

Genesis

1 - 342 n. 21

2 - 342 n. 21
2:21-23-221 n. 5
2:23-217 n. 21
3:7-309 n. 30
4:4-25

10:8 ff.- 342
12:1-233
12:1 ff.- 371 n. 50
12:4-94

12:6-67 nn. 12, 13
15:1-6-285 n. 15
17:10 ff.- 371 n. 50
22:1-20 - 300 n. 25
22:5-57
25:22 - 170
30:1-24 — 285 n. 15
32 - 320
33:13-402
38:9-293 n. 11
49:24 - 213

Exodus

4:21-341

5:21-367

7:3-341

7:13-341

12:8-231

12:11-67

14:14-213

20:4-5-401 n. 7

33:20-367

49:24-213

Leviticus

12:31-300 n. 25
13:1 ff.- 364
18:10-300 n. 25
23:21-22-285 n. 14
34:5-6 — 361 n. 8

Joshua

5:9-102

9-278

11:19-20-245

I Samuel
3:4 ff.- 366
3:18-233
15:35-368

II Samuel ,
7:12-360
12:16 ff.- 368

I Kings
2:10-360
12:12-14-216 n. 8
18:17 ff.- 307
20:3 ff. -217 n. 14
21:17 ff.- 307 n. 14

II Kings
2:9-232
2:11-361

20:3 ff.- 220 n. 11
21:6-300
23:10-300
25-396 n. 11

II Chronicles
36:22-23-359

Ezra

1 - 3-359

Job

40:15 ff. -306 n. 7

Psalms
2:1-2-189
2:4-189, 220, 221
2:9-321
2:10-11-189

11-286 n. 10
15:16-33-293
18:21-283, 293, 300 n. 25
20:2 - 283, 293, 3 00 n. 25
20:20- 285 n. 15

Numbers
25:3-315
30:2-3-285 n. 14

Deuteronomy
4:24 - 367
7:2 ff. - 286 n. 16

4:4-213 n. 11
5:8-21
17:8-379 n. 38
22:6-281
31:22-367
34:2-35
34:8-36
37:13-220
37:13-14-221
39-67
41:5-216
42:8-233
45:7-72
76:11-297
77-293
78:31 - 153
88:3-367
89:47-215
93:4-153
94:11-332
105:3-35
106:27-293
106:28-315
109:17-252
110:2-13
112:10-308
119:13-21
120:4-66
124:1-3-249
140:11-361
146:2-70
146:3-4-206
147:5-333

Proverbs
12:4-334 n. 19
21:1-69
28:26-206
3 1:10-334 n. 19
31:30-334 n. 19

Isaiah

2:12-13-341
2:22-365 n. 4
5:14-15-213 n. 7
7:4 - 381 n. 9
8:14-189
11:2-287

424

INDEX

30:1-35

33:1-342

36:6-110 n. 15

38:13-367

47:14-35

49:6-100

64:7-215

Jeremiah

1:10-375

8:11-375

9:1-215 n. 2

10:23-22

10:24 - 367

17:5-206

17:17-367

23:14-375

25:9-260

29:7-259

40:5-6-359

46:21-223 n. 6

48:10-307, 375

51:11-260

Ezekiel

13:5-215, 397
22:30-215, 397
26:7-260
29:6-7-110 n. 15

Daniel

3-189

8:16-17-367

Hosea

4:15-338 n. 8
9:10-315
10:5-338 n. 8

Amos

4:11-47

Habakkuk

1:14-179

2 : 6-10

Zechariah

3:2-47

Matthew

3:2-66 n. 9, 68 n. 15

4:4-206

5:13-266

5:40-140

6:9-391

6:26-235

7:5-343

7:14-47

9:36-234

9:37-262

10:28-58 n. 12

10:34-153 n. 14

10:37-335, 379

11:16-17-146

12:31-32-303

12:37-376

16:18-327, 340

17:3-361

18:15-383

18:17-340

18:19-368

18:28-13

19:6-280

19:10-11-334

19:11 ff.- 294

21 - 67 n. 12

21:19-214

21:22-368

23:24-47

23:35-266

23:37-375

24:30-366 n. 15

25:18-13

26:41-308

26:57-387

27:37 - 145

Mark

2:3 ff. — 369 n. 37
9:23-369

Luke

1:29-367
2:34-16, 189
3:14-259
13:6-9-214 n. 6
13:11 ff.- 286
16:23 ff. -361
17:11 ff.- 313
22:14ff. — 317
22:32-289
22:53-233
23:6-12-146

John

1:29-282
3:30 - 288 n. 35

5:31-32-366

6:45-54

8:13-14-366

10:3-35

10:11-396

12:31-267

13:16-221

15:5 - 156 ff.

15:6-158

16:8-375

16:16-202

18:12-13-387

19:9-146

19:11-262, 395

20:23-288, 294

Acts

4:32-20
5:9 - 377
5:29-30 - 395
5:34-35-366
5:38-39-208 n. 21

Q.l 1QO

10:9 ff. - 286 n. 17
13:1 ff.- 262
15:10-11-285
15:22 - 262
16:3-298 n. 10
20:28- 235 n. 55
21:22 ff.- 298 n. 10
23:3-170

Romans

8:15-16-391
8:28-159
9:31-32-24
10:3-24
10:10-370
13:1 ff. — 178, 258
n. 13, 260
13:4-260
13:8-9-402 n. 11
14 -402n.il
14:-1 — 375
15 - 402 n. 11
15:7-13
16:20-372

I Corinthians
2:11 — 301

2:7 - 383 n. 9
3:4-207

15:28-147 4:1-371 n. 50

16:16 -367, 371, 371 n. 48 5-24

425

LETTERS

3:12-13-35
3:22-23 - 335
4:9-294
4:20-300
5:6-384
5:7-67
5:13-342
3-10-299
6:9 - 293 n. 11
6:20-282
7:2-279
7:9-279, 304
7:14-372
7:25 ff.- 294

7.00 _ 9Q1

8 -298 n. 10, 402 n. 11

9:2-119

9:24 ff . — 287

10:13-72

11:26 ff. — 317

13:7-375

14:30-262

16:10-374

16:19-236

II Corinthians
1:3-390
2:11-376 n. 18
2:15-16-16, 35
3:3-6-25 n. 13
6:4-387
6:5-387
11:13-170
11:29-304
12:2-360, 366

Galatians

1:8-206, 207

1:11-12-390

3:12-298

3:19 ff.- 299

5:1 ff.- 299

5:19-293 n. 11, 304

5:22 - 383 n. 9

6:2-216, 385

6:7-383

6:13-331

Ephesians
2:2-147 n. 23
4:2 - 383 n. 9

4:19-304
5:28-29-217 n. 21,

221 n. 5
6:1-335
6:12-267, 319

Philippians

2:4-385

2:5-7-13

2:12-13-46

3:2-170

Colossians
1:10-401
3:12-383 n. 9
3:20-335

1 Thessalonians
5:21 - 105, 266

II Thessalonians

2 - 114 n. 10

I Timothy
1:5-355
2:1-2-259
2:2-260

4 : 1 ff . — 277 ff
4:11 ff. -377
5:2-284

5:3-16-279, 284 f., 293,
299, 302
6:11-383 n. 9

II Timothy
1:15-302
2:9-206
2:19-270
3:2-335
4:10-302

Titus

1:10-170
1:15-158, 372
2:7-8-294

2:11-14-237 f., 255 n. 11
3:10-11-252, 304

Hebrews
2:7-55 n. 10
11:1-232

11:8 - 94,233

I Peter
1:12-206
1:18-19-282
2:5-10-265
2:13-14-260
2:25-286
3:15-105
3:19-361
4:18-46

II Peter
2:10-261
3:13-282

I John

2:18-114 n. 16
4:1-364, 366
4:3-114 n. 16
4:11-301
5:16-304

II John
7-114 n. 16

Jude

7- 361

8- 261

Revelation
5:9-10-265
9:13-114 n. 16
11:7-114 n. 16
12 - 114 n. 16
13:1-114 n. 16
17 - 62 n. 19
17:8-114 n. 16
20:6-265

APOCRYPHA

Tobit

4:20-21

Wisdom of Solomon
3:13-334

Ecclesiasticus
26 : 15 - 33 3
34:12-13-335

426

135 798

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Luther S Works Volume 48 Letters I"

See other formats